assassin_696

One final point, to stand on 'love no matter what' is all very well in principle, but if it comes from God, or Jesus then it's a command. You cannot be compelled into love, loving your neighbour may seem noble but it's very hard, loving your enemy is by definition impossible. Those of us who have experienced and felt real love know what a rare and precious gift it is, but to be compelled into it by a God under pain of hell if we don't is absurd, and immoral.

That's not true at all, I have far more respect for moderate or liberal Christians because it's evident that they've probably at least studied the Bible someway. If you had, you would realise the glaring contradictions, inaccuracies and absurdities mean it is obviously a work of fiction, although liberal Christians would say inspired by God. You're also hypocritical, you said you desire to know the truth, but by accepting the Bible as the literal word of God that's impossible. How dare you even suggest that homosexuals are unhappy and deluding themselves, and would be better off with someone of the opposite sex. That's extremely ignorant of you to all the very happy homosexuals out there, who are (from what i've seen) often a lot happier than God-fearing heterosexuals out there. Is it natural? Of course, it exists in nature, not every action is designed to reproduce. Besides, it's an act done in private between two consenting adults, what gives you the right to say they shouldn't, or would be happier if they didn't?

Aren't Mods supposed to be an example for everyone else to follow and not let their arguments deteriorate into personal attacks when they merely have a philosophical disagreement with a person? It wasn't a personal attack per-se, I didn't really think anyone was exactly following that reasoning to believe in a god, but that doesn't change the fact that I do regard hedging your bets on a god to get into heaven as cowardly, and the god would see through it. That was more the point. I could interchange "your" with "the" but it doesn't read as well.

But I've been in puberty for a while. It's not always an on/off type situation. Everyone is individual, just because you've hit puberty doesn't mean you'll have the hormonal stuff straight away, it normally takes a few years to kick in, or it might kick in straight away, or it might not.

Read up a critique of Pascal's Wager, that's what Satenza's saying. Basically, no matter what religion you believe in, you can't believe in them all. So, the chances of your God being the right one are vanishingly small. Also, since your God is the omniscient type, he'll be able to see through your cowardly hedge-betting.

I remember doing this a while ago, fun topic :) Opening credits: Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Parts I-V - Pink Floyd Waking up: Return To Innocence - Enigma Average day: Breakdown - Jack Johnson First date: Crazy Little Thing Called Love - Queen Falling in love: This Years Love - David Gray Love scene: Chasing Cars - Snow Patrol Fight scene: Club Foot - Kasabian Breaking up: Breakfast At Tiffany's - Deep Blue Something Getting back together: Love Will Tear Us Apart - Jose Gonzalez Secret love: A Martyr For My Love For You - The White Stripes Life's okay: Coming Back To Life - Pink Floyd Mental breakdown: Heroin - The Velvet Underground Driving: Driving South - The Stone Roses Learning a lesson: Wonderwall - Oasis Deep thought: Fields Of Gold - Eva Cassidy Flashback: Lover, You Should've Come Over - Jeff Buckley Partying: Born Slippy - Underworld Happy dance: Brown Eyed Girl - Van Morrison Regreting: Behind Blue Eyes - The Who Long night alone: Elusive - Scott Matthews Death scene: Comfortably Numb [Live] - Pink Floyd Closing credits: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise) - The Beatles

I don't think you can justify censorship by saying 'If that ideology who's freedom we had protected got into power it would threaten my other freedoms', since the chances of that happening are vanishingly small. Besides, freedom of speech and opinion is a principle of democracy, I don't think you can defend democracy by denying those rights it, since that's a bit hypocritical.

I've lost interest in this, but i'm sure i'll end up reading it and absorbing myself.

Saute (fry) new potatoes that have been cooked before (chop them up into little slices) with sliced and diced bacon. Add an egg, let it cook then break it up so it scrambles, then throw some salad in. Lovely.

Locked :)

Sadly, these views are less extreme than you might think.

"Is x one of the best bands ever?" doesn't really constitute much of a thread, I suggest you read this and feel free to repost this when you've got a little more to add. Until then, locked.

Advertise your thing here - all posted elsewhere = removed.

Jazz is one of those genres which I would love to listen to and know about but I just find it really hard to get into because it's so overwhelming. I can definitely appreciate jazz music though, but personally I prefer the blues.

That's irrelevant regarding the quality of their leadership or other such things. Ethically, yeah he was bad, but as I said, it's not that simple. But, he was a bad leader, he (or Himmler I suppose, but as the guy up there said "He didn't have leadership over Himmler, and by not stopping it shows he didn't mind) didn't just kill Jews, he also killed the disabled, Pow's, and gays. Is that the quality of good leadership? Killing off people you don't like? The reason hilter got Germany *slightly* out of their depression was by creating factories to *fund* the war! To *lead* Germany to a war without any previous engagement! How is that good leadership?? Where he failed as a tactician towards the end (Blitzkrieg was genius), he made up for with his ability to inspire an entire nation and get them behind a war effort. It takes a powerful leader to do that. He began to fail towards the end of the war (see the film Downfall, it's excellent). The point was more made to assert that ethics (sadly) have little to do with the quality of a military leader. It's weird, I almost feel like i'm defending Hitler in this thread. I'm not, what i'm trying to do is show that Hitler is not the modern day satan that he's made out to be in popular culture and society, and that he was by no means the worst, there are many equally bad people out there. Of course his eugenics policy was disgusting, but so is any and his was far from the only one. He also had a smaller part to play in it that he's made out to have, Himmler (the coward) visited the death camps far more than Hitler.

@Kashi, I find your attitude disturbing, everyone has a right to life, and no one has the authority to decide to take anyone's fundamental right to life away from them. You or I least of all. To the OP, yes of course I think banning these symbols is wrong, but as Satenza put it so eloquently, only becuase no government should have the authority to ban these symbols, and because the freedom to hold an opinion is fundamental, and should be defended above all else. What's next? The banning of communist symbols in Russia? The banning of the eagle in Italy? Apart from that, it's the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalala" and ignoring an important (if not probably embarassing) part of their history. We cannot afford to be ignorant of the past, because the past is what we learn from.

Moved to Tech and Computers :)

Hahaha... :lol:

That's what I was thinking, but it's more likely just teenage mood swings.

How is this even a valid discussion given what we now know about them?

Cool video, but... Trivial youtube/google video links to be posted here :wink:

To everyone commenting on how ruined Germany was after the war, that was largely due to America and the USSR bickering over who gets what, West Berlin largely propered in the 1950's, it was East Berlin which suffered under communism. Eventually, someone mentions Dresden! All these people who think Hitler killed milliond of people in the Blitz... well that's laughable really. It is estimated the UK only lost about 40,000 (I say only 40,000, but on the scheme of things it's pretty small) citizens during the German bombing campaigns over the whole of the six-year war. Towards the end of the war, the Allies were killing around 40,000 people a night in their bombing missions! If this thread proves one thing, it's that children go to school these days to be 'taught', not to learn. Excellent point, (and to be fair, on the UK GCSE History syllabus) that the allied bombing campaigns of Dresden and Hamburg killed far more than the Blitz ever did, and much later into the war when it would have given no real strategic advantage. I did my coursework on the WWII bombing campaigns, I've forgotten my conclusion, I think Bomber Harris was essentially acting for Britain's best interests, but people seem to overlook the horror of the allied bombing campaigns. War brings out atrocities on either side. That's irrelevant regarding the quality of their leadership or other such things. Ethically, yeah he was bad, but as I said, it's not that simple. I don't quite understand how you can rule ethics out of the equation when asking, "what makes a good leader?" Easy, look back in history. Many of the great military leaders in the past have had 'questionable' ethics, Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell etc etc.

I'm a liberal, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that i'm open minded when it comes to others opinions. In fact i'm probably more so because of it, since I would vehemently defend the freedom of opinion and speech to it's death. To quote Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If you ask the question of me, I would say that I don't really have an opinion either way, it's not something I want done but that doesn't mean that I don't think others should be allowed to have the op. It doesn't go against my ethics or morals, but trying to prevent it because it freaks you out a bit is against my moral ideals, namely control of your own body. Considering I haven't seen any evidence of any kind which shows that it's any kind of detriment to society, I would say that it's their body and I have no right to say what they can and can't do with it so long as other's aren't harmed. But apparently having these ideals makes me 'naive'. Regarding your stance as the 'best way to be' is ironic, because you just criticised others for being closeminded, but isn't it you who is being closeminded when it comes to the fact that there might be a better stance than yours? The question still stands for you.

That's irrelevant regarding the quality of their leadership or other such things. Ethically, yeah he was bad, but as I said, it's not that simple.

How the hell are they a threat to others? Say someone wanting a sex change was seen by a psychologist before they had the op, and she concluded that the best course of action was for them to have a sex change, would you still be against it? What i'm trying to say is, are you against it because you genuinely believe that your idea is better and will help them more, or just because it goes against your ethics and morals, and you are trying to impose those on these people. Because it's coming across like it's the latter, which you're trying to justify with the former.