Crocefisso

I think all of the changes here look sound, bar one: This seems silly to me; though Sports & Fitness may not be the most active sub-forum, Off-Topic would be too crowded in my opinion if we incorporated yet another aspect into it. Similarly, if literary discussion is added to OT, it'd be the sort of thing that may well need a subforum of its own too.

Great. More of this meaningless [cabbage] just tells me that Jagex don't have the balls to tackle bots.

Is it any good? I've always been mildly interested in the Katamari games.

You chose to gamble. It doesn't matter how many times you do so, there is always a chance of losing. That's probability.

I've no haters, I've never had any, and suspect I never will.

Can't stand people who text too much when they should be conversing with fellow humans face-to-face.

:thumbup: This is brilliant. Just make sure they're all mute, too.

The death penalty is ethically wrong, simply because it is a manifestation of revenge in its most barbaric form, and it is contrary to the (to my mind) irrefutable principle that revenge is petty and best avoided at all times. But hey, politics and morality aren't really connected anyway. Ethics change over time. Besides, who is the one to set ethics anyways? If we're going to go into meta-ethics, I am a firm moral realist, and as such I do not believe your first sentence at all. Second, I think it is the job of the state to have an ethical basis, much in the same way a political party has (allegedly) an ideology, because ultimately a closer link between philosophy and politics would be very beneficial for the latter and, in some senses, the former. Ethics don't have anything to do with being a realist. Ethics are learned. You are not born with them. How exactly would you have an ethical basis if people differentiate in the meaning of the word. If you do that, you're basically telling people they are wrong/incorrect in their beliefs. Pretty sure that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. I believe moral realism, as a meta-ethical concept, is perfectly sound. As such, I do believe that man is born with a degree of ethical grounding. I cannot recall any society that has thought it acceptable to murder, and the only individuals that are are deemed by society as psychopathic. This is one example of telling people what to believe, and I see no reason not to do so more often (even if it violates the US constitution, which here in the UK holds no sway).

This has reminded me of a hilarious bat[cabbage] crazy Bachmann video I saw a while back. Specifically, the part about trying to use the census to catch illegal immigrants (as if they're going to just tell the government they're illegally there).

The death penalty is ethically wrong, simply because it is a manifestation of revenge in its most barbaric form, and it is contrary to the (to my mind) irrefutable principle that revenge is petty and best avoided at all times. But hey, politics and morality aren't really connected anyway. Ethics change over time. Besides, who is the one to set ethics anyways? If we're going to go into meta-ethics, I am a firm moral realist, and as such I do not believe your first sentence at all. Second, I think it is the job of the state to have an ethical basis, much in the same way a political party has (allegedly) an ideology, because ultimately a closer link between philosophy and politics would be very beneficial for the latter and, in some senses, the former.

Socialization, drugs (some people prefer religion as their sedative state of mind), and any personal hobby or form of escapism you can find. In some instances, leisure is the most constructive thing you can do. I'd go for religion over drugs anyday if I were under lots of pressure. You (Tim) should try meditating and reading some Zen literature (Ryokan is a favourite of mine, see Amazon for some cheap books of his). Meditating does work, but you'll also need to understand the context and ritualism for it to be anything more than pretense and placebo. Edit: If you think you're up for some heavy reading, try Huang Po's teachings on the Transmission of Mind.

The death penalty is ethically wrong, simply because it is a manifestation of revenge in its most barbaric form, and it is contrary to the (to my mind) irrefutable principle that revenge is petty and best avoided at all times. But hey, politics and morality aren't really connected anyway.

Facebook? That website holds all sorts of useful information. Perhaps she has one of those absurd Facebook names like Snuggles xXx ;) Taaraaa. (Bad example I know). These sort of people also annoy me.

As a former Tory party member, I feel I am not in much of a position to give you a balanced run down of the three main parties.

This is exactly how it is.

This would be so much easier to comprehend if you guys used metric measurements more often. :P

I hate it when people do this.

This is ironic given your name.

I've never heard of 'floorcest'. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it, though it's not something that's likely to catch on here in England.

Can't quite see the difference here. I was pretty sure that both declined over quite a long period of time, rather than as suddenly as say Nazi Germany, though I must be wrong. Or is the connection that the Roman Empire ultimately fell violently, and the British rather peacefully (by in large).

Does it piss me off? Not particularly, but my definition on bravery would be someone saying "pull the plug on me, I don't really want to suffer through this." Now that takes some balls (and courage) do do. The object of life is to survive whatever the circumstances. Giving up at any point is the weak option, even with terminal illness.

A symbolic victory and little more, I'm afraid.

The point of the discussion thread is not to guess at what an article may or may not be disguising. A worrying number of people seem to enjoy over-analysis in this vein.

tml, I can't be bothered to go back into the old 'how much support does Gaddafi have' argument. You've finally admitted to never having lived in Libya, and what I think you need to understand is that all the videos of support for the rebels you post are of a tiny proportion of the population of 6 million. This is not to say that the rebels don't have a majority of the support from the Libyan people - they do - but acting like nobody supports Gaddafi and anyone who disagrees is heartless and wants to oppress Libya and its people is not a rational argument. A few always will, be they Libyans or Tuareg rebels from Niger that Gaddafi supported or whatever. Do I think they're right to? No. But polarising things never helps anybody. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0XsF03fNM4

You base this off a dissimilarity in personal ethics? The callous apathy to suffering is a trait either of a psychopath or a young person with very little actual exposure to life. I'm assuming the latter. I think we can all empathise to those with cancer, irrespective of our ethical perspectives.