assassin_696

Do whatever the hell you feel like, honestly, just anything that takes your fancy, doesn't have to be special. Sounds like you're having some good celebrations already so you don't need to worry too much about that. Happy birthday though :)

+1 This thread is just as arbitary as all the other simple answer type threads out there, but that doesn't mean it should be locked.

insane, if you want a specific critique... Your "argument" is wrong for a few reasons. 1) It assumes that you can't learn to "do it well' with your spouse. 2) It implies that you will be basing who you marry on how well they perform in bed. Not only is that shallow, it leaves little to be desired when you're aged and discover that you're impotent. 3) Saying it "makes for a better experience" implies that you have experienced the other side, which you obviously haven't. Re: 1. Learning how to do it isn't the point, it's about making the first time with your actualy spouse special, and it's probably going to be more special if you're not awkwardly fumbling around. I say probably because people are different. Re: 2. Again, he's not saying that, he's saying having a good sex life (not awkward or timid) is part of a healthy relationship. Let's face it, you really wouldn't want to marry a girl and spend the rest of your life with her if she was completely against sex would you? On the flip side if you're more laid back and you find out your girlfriend is a nymphomaniac you might not be so happy. I know that sounds terribly shallow, but the point is there are probably some things you want to find out about your future partner before you get married, and their attitude to sex is a biggie in my mind. That is incredible vague and lacking in substance. Blanket statements only cover gaping holes in arguments. What, do you want specifics? People are different, you have to accept that his statement holds for his relationship because there isn't really an obvious way to prove it. I'd hardly call it vague. You're right. In fact, I'm arguing for conservative prudishness. So all you're saying is that my argument is consistent with my beliefs. And you added a bunch of emotionally loaded (aka. logically empty) terminology to make me look bad. Using emotional langauge doesn't make it irrelevant to the point, he's just pointing out it has political bias. It is mutual at the present time. I'm not sure how many women are thankful they slept with their boyfriends after their boyfriends turn around and sleep with someone else or ditch them for someone that "performs better". And that's my entire point - you don't know, if you aren't married, if you are in a long-term relationship. You're taking a gamble. You're looking at sex from a "live for the present" mindset. After criticising him for making assumptions you actually just made a few of your own. 1. That all boyfriends who sleep with girls before marriage then cheat on them. 2. That boyfriends base who they date solely on how they perform in bed. I tell you what's taking a gamble, not knowing what your future life partners attitude to sex is. I can't see how that's healthy for a long term relationship. Oh really. So the more you do something, the more special and unique it gets? Give me a break. The more people you have sex with, the less meaningful it will get with each person. That's so obvious I don't even have to explain it to you. Ever heard of the term "the novelty just wore off"? Maybe with your 10th partner you'll still consider it "special", but it definitely won't be as special as if they were your 1st. Yeah, sometimes. Sex isn't a novelty, it's a beautiful thing between two people who care about each other. I don't think couples who are deeply in love think for many years "well the novelties worn off now", it can still be magic. But honestly, it's all down to the individual. What some people want would never work for others. But I don't think you should remain a virgin until marriage because you feel you have to, if you want to do it as a moral principle that's fine but don't feel obliged to then try and defend it with added morals (not saying you were, generalised statement).

Okay, I think this has gone on long enough. Locked.

I agree with regards to videogames and television, but with some exceptions. I mean there really have been some great TV programs recently, a couple of stunning documentaries (Planet Earth, the Blue Planet), rockumentaries (the Seven Ages of Rock) and series like Doctor Who and others. Mostly from the BBC come to think of it. Reality TV is awful, I find talent shows far too samey and boring, and daytime TV is rubbish. Movies, i'm not so sure. I agree there's a lot of generic big blockbuster films but some of them are quite entertaining, and there is a lot of good future classic films being made from Pixar and the like, as well as genuinely good once a year films. As for music, well i'm a big lover of the old stuff but I love a lot of new stuff as well. You've just got to scratch below the surface of your generic pop/rock/hip hop and you can find some real talent out there. I think a lot of it is simply because we're growing up in this generation we're exposed to all the entertainment around, instead of just selecting the best bits like we do with the 'classics'. Meh, I say bring back live readings of classic books like [bleep]ens used to do :thumbsup:

Actually I didn't miss the point, I just replied in reference to his analogy. You know, i'm glad that you're not taking my opinions as literal truth because they're opinions and they shouldn't be just taken like that as fact. But the point is not that i'm anti-religion, that's nothing to do with it, i'm just showing that two people who're normally revered in western society as examples of altruism and saintlyhood when examined closely actually aren't. And my sources were actually a couple of books, but whatever, clearly you don't like me backing it up with facts so just dismiss it as reeling off wikipedia. And don't even try and associate that piece of literarery trash the Da Vinci Code with me, it has had no influence whatsoever on my views. On the contrary, I was the one who considered the other side of the coin when criticising (although the motivation for the criticism was not mine) two people normally thought of as perfect moral examples. trapical's point was that the actions of one person higher up in authority can have more effect on the outcome than actually committing the act yourself. And you respond with something about Hitler fighting in WWI, which has little relevance to the point.

You're comparing the ability to write a cheque to actually saving someones life? He's done more than just write cheques, he's set up the largest charitable foundation in the world, he's also announced his plans to phase out working day to day at Mircosoft so he can devote more time to the charity. I'd much rather have Gates than those pretenders Teresa and to a lesser extent, Ghandi. Pretenders? :lol: Tell me, how can "setting up a charity" be better than devoting your life to actually helping people. Did it ever occur to you that Ghandi and Teresa weren't the richest people in the world? Think about it, they were willing to donate everything they had to helping other people, if they had Gates' money you're saying they wouldn't help more than him? Yeah, pretenders. I'm assuming that you're judging Teresa by her reputation, not her actual actions? Teresa was pretty much an old hag who hid behind the pretence of missionary work to try and convert as many people to religion as possible. She never did anything to try and alleviate the poverty people lived in, encouraging the poor to embrace their poverty. A particularly memorable quote from her Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech was that "abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace today" which is frankly laughable. She also generally didn't treat children under her care very much. She hid behind the guise of a saint to try and spread her particular brand of Catholicism, and opened convents in 150 countries instead of using the donated money to open a teaching hospital. She also accepted donations from third world dictators and several people later accused of fraud and racketering. Yeah, some 'saint'. Ghandi should get some credit for attempting to abolish the unfair Caste system, and his general pacifism was on the surface, noble, but he did sometimes use violence when it suited him, and generally wanted India to return to a prmitive, tribal village state. He generally despised modern technology, and millions would have starved to death needlessly if his advice had been followed (he promoted old fashioned farming techniques which wouldn't have been able to support the population). He made power sharing with Muslims deliberately hard, and when the Japanese Imperialists were knocking on India's door he abandoned the political process and simply told the British to "Quit India" and leave it to "God or anarchy". His shambolic legacy lives on to this day where bloodshed in Bangladesh and the threat of thermonuclear war in Kashmir looms. So yeah, give me Bill Gates anyday. Hitler fought on the frontline in the First World War. Well done for missing the point.

Get out. You have no place amongst those who recognise the rights and wishes of fellow human beings.

Oh man, I completely forgot his stuff, so powerful and atmospheric. 'The Ecstasy of Gold' still sends shivers down my spine. Soundtracks where the music wasn't original would be Tarantino's stuff, or the This is England soundtrack is pretty good actually.

Cherub Rock - The Smashing Pumpkins

:lol: DO IT NOW! :lol: Just as funny the second time I've watched it. http://youtube.com/watch?v=dZLyGqAnRLA Hehe, you can actually hear the fear in Hamster's voice. Priceless TV moment :) Haha, TG ftw, best TV moment of whenever it was aired by far that episode was. I'd suggest hanging a rope between two trees on a slope, and do the whole zipwire thing between and slam into the bottom tree at various speeds.

I'd say go, you might regret if you didn't and everyone is raving about how much fun it was, but if you don't then don't worry, you've got many years of clubbing ahead of you :)

You're comparing the ability to write a cheque to actually saving someones life? He's done more than just write cheques, he's set up the largest charitable foundation in the world, he's also announced his plans to phase out working day to day at Mircosoft so he can devote more time to the charity. I'd much rather have Gates than those pretenders Teresa and to a lesser extent, Ghandi.

Haha, amen to that! :P

The threat of robots taking over is way too overblown, especially in regards to AI. It's a big, big step from algorithms that can learn from their mistakes (which we have at the moment) to genuinely thinking, conscious, 'free' programs.

Thankyou for pointing that out, I was starting to think nobody had a clue what they were talking about. He'd have barely any of that in comparison to the $50+ Billion he has in assets actually in his bankaccount(s). Oh and Trapical spot on! :wink: Yeah I know I was wanting to point that out as well. There's this misconception that people with like $50 billion dollars literally have that sitting in their bank accounts. Bill Gates is probably the most charitable man on the planet, it's hard to find fault with someone so generous and altruistic.

There's no justification for it, it's just a desperate last ditch attempt by theists to try and reconcile their particular god with science because there's some small aspect of the Universe which we're still not sure about, so the theists jump on it and say "Aha! You can't explain that so there must be a god!" But that's just ridiculous, it's a god of the gaps type argument that simply fails because it begs the "well who made god?" question immediately. A Christian trying to justify their faith in Christianity is a very desperate Christian indeed. I semi-prefer it when Christians just say "God is beyond science" because at least they're acknowledging that you can't prove God with a gap in our present knowledge, but that argument still fails, especially when we try and deal with a personal Christian god. There might well be a deist type higher being, we couldn't disprove that, but there just doesn't need to be one, so Ockam's razor prunes it succinctly.

On a second side note, did anyone watch the indie Seven Ages of Rock documentary on Saturday. I recorded it, they're normally great but apparently The Smiths were fairly prominent in it.

WHAT?!?!?!? God Catherine Tate was awful in that one off, but a whole series of her will be unbearable, especially in that role she played. At least David Tennant is good. Yeah, that girl from Blink was definitely companion material, in fact probably more so than any others I reckon.

Size 11, age 16. Meh, wouldn't really want them any bigger, hard enough to find good shoes as it is without having to worry about sizing.

It's not an easy to concept to get your head round i'll admit, but it's certainly not the same as invoking a God, because; who made God? (I feel like a broken record). There's no scientific explanation in saying god did it, you just get in physicists way.

This is actually quite painful :uhh: Can we please keep it on...uhh...topic? (is there one?)

After hearing Jose Gonzalez's cover of Heartbeats I sought out the original and actually really liked it. Apart from that, don't really know their stuff :uhh:

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I love the Smiths, fantastic band and Morrissey is amazing. Definitely one of the best British bands since The Beatles for that kind of very-clever music and lyrics. I don't find his lyrics pretentious at all, in fact they're fantastic. Although the lyrics are often quite dark Johnny Marr's guitar work always provides that perfect lift which makes the songs so good. There Is A Light That Never Goes Out is one of my favourite songs of all time, and Panic is great as well. On a side note, Morrissey was recently voted the 2nd sexiest vegetarian in Europe or something.

What Church believes that? Also is that what you think they believe or do you know it as a 100% fact? Just wondering since I have never heard this in my life from any of the denominations I have visited or have knowledge of. Just struck me as sorta odd since that statement counters Jesus coming to Earth in the first place as well as counters a good bit of what he said on this Earth while he was here. I've heard that statement as well, it's one of those contradictions in the Bible. Basically, you get statements for non-Christians entering heaven, and statements against. The same's true in Islam, although most take the apostates-are-going-to-hell view. See: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm The argument from the first cause is one of the better ones, but the whole idea of causality breaks down for a couple of reasons. 1. The laws of cause and effect break down in some areas of physics (quantum mechanics, the quantum electro-weak force etc). 2. We think time began at the big bang. To talk about it having a cause necessitates a time before the big bang for a cause to exist in, but there is none. 3. Even if we don't know the exact big bang theory (which we don't, it's still an active area of research) that's no reason to fill the 'gap' in our present knowledge in with God, because as our knowledge progresses there are increasingly few places for him to hide.