Scruffy5389

Definitely a STUPID call by the ref. That should not have been a foul at all, and the game could have gone completely differently if they hadn't gotten that cheap point. :evil: Disappointing.

Bah, Argentina vs. Netherlands was boring. It seemed like neither team really cared who won. They're both going on to the next round anyway. I got through most of the game before I finally switched the channel and watched the end of the Serbia and Montenegro / Ivory Coast game. It was pretty sweet. Ivory Coast comes back from 2-0 and wins on a penalty kick in the 86th. Very exciting. 8-)

Crying shows that you are vulnerable. The way guys are wired, we don't want to appear vulnerable. It's just not as socially acceptable as for a girl. Interesting thing to think about: I've done a fair amount of acting, and the one thing I find almost impossible is crying onstage. I can be angry, happy, sad, crazy, lovesick, whatever, and truly believe in the scene I am creating. I've convincingly committed suicide onstage. But when it comes time to cry, that is such a vulnerable moment, I can't carry it out without becoming self-conscious. And as soon as I become self-conscious, I lose my belief in the scene, and the tears and the scene stop for me. That's how intense crying is. I think that's why guys won't let themselves cry.

Okay, I'm back. I'll try and be succinct, because I don't have anything to say that really fundamentally disagrees with you, GhostRanger. :D As I was reading this thread, the more of your posts I read, the more I suspected that this was true. :P Certainly, religious groups can attempt to legislate their beliefs of right and wrong, but their beliefs of right and wrong cannot be the justification for the legislation. What you said about gay marriage is a perfect example. We absolutely can make non-religious arguments against homosexual marriage. Maybe it impedes the advancement of population, maybe it increases the spread of AIDS, maybe it creates an unhealthy family atmosphere for children. These are all valid arguments that deserve consideration in the congressional debate. But we must ban any religious arguments from the debate. It is inappropriate to argue that because God does not condone homosexuality, the government shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t either. In the end, the law may be written that satisfies the religious group. But the law must be supported solely and completely by secular (non-religious) arguments. Whether I have proven actual morality doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t change the issue. If morality is purely a personal judgement, then we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t legislate based on personal morality. Instead, these personal views have to be superceded by a greater regard for society as a whole. We must decide as a country that all laws need to be for the common good, where "good" means the traditional American democratic values as established by Jefferson et al. This is the only way to ensure that we do not force unfair moral judgements (such as a Jewish ban on ham/pork) on people who deserve the freedom to choose for themselves. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m starting to suspect that we really agree on the basic issue. Your last sentence seems to agree completely with my entire argument. "...if a group of Christians wanted to legislate their beliefs - they would have to show how it is productive to society and not that it's just something they believe." This is as good as saying that all laws must have secular justification. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s more or less what I was trying to prove all along. As Astralinre saidÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ I think thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a perfect attitude to have. We wonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t force you to be tolerant, because that would be violating your beliefs, and you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t try and force any of your beliefs on us. Freedom for all! :D

Spain pretty much dominated that game, even when they were down by a point in the first half and most of the second. I thought it was obvious they would come through with at least a win. Tunisia had one good scoring opportunity, and they scored. Spain had twenty, and they finally put a few in at the end.

I agree and disagree. I don't think there should be laws establishing a national religion or supporting one religion over another, however, since religion affects people's beliefs - and politics are made up of people's beliefs - there has to be a point where they come together. For instance, I strongly believe that we should not kill or murder. I believe these things because I was raised knowing the Bible says we should not do them. Indoctrinated, if you will. But whatever the reason, I think these things should be outlawed so if given the chance, I will try and outlaw them. Now other people, perhaps yourself, happen to agree with me on these issues. Some believe it because of religion, some believe it for other reasons. One person's reason is no better than anyone elses, so I have every right to bring my religious beliefs into politics as long as I'm not forcing someone to become a Christian. I'm not even going to say "I think it should be this way because the Bible says so." It's not necessary. No one can really "prove" why they think something is wrong, so me thinking it is wrong is all I need to. If a secularist can attempt outlaw murder because they believe it's wrong, then a Christian can attempt to outlaw murder because they think it's wrong. Majority wins. :P I think you're wrong, because I can in fact "prove" that murder is wrong, Starting with just the basic principles of democracy (not a religious belief or a personal sense of moral right and wrong). First, everybody has a basic (maybe God-given) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We're allowed, entitled to be free. Freedom is right, anything else is wrong. The basic premise of American government is that we willingly sacrifice some freedom in order that other freedoms remain safe. For example, I sacrifice the right to take whatever I want. By making this sacrifice (by writing and following the law against stealing), I know that others will do the same. This means I don't have to worry about people stealing my stuff. I am free to own property. That is the basis for any law. Laws make small restrictions on liberty which, overall, guarantee greater liberty for all of society. Murder, obviously, is not acceptable in a free society. Murder destroys liberty and life. Therefore murder is morally wrong. So we write a law that restricts our freedom to kill whoever we want. My logic is not religious, I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even label it as "atheist." ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s common sense. It follows the same practical reasoning as treating others as you want to be treated. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s good for everyone is good for you and/or me. Therefore, in debating politics, the debate must be limited to this: whether something is harmful enough to society to be deemed immoral and illegal. Murder is an obvious case. We can prove that it is wrong. What a bonus that the bible agrees with us :D Good question. Good point. I would say, who are you to judge? Someone elseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s homosexuality does not damage your life or society, so you have no reason to meddle in their life and tell them what is right and wrong. You would be restricting liberty for no purpose. Or maybe I would just say, where's your proof? :P Because if you're not using a religious justification, then you are now playing my ball game. Your unsupported belief that gay marriage is wrong does not justify restricting the rights and liberty of a homosexual couple. Because my belief is based on a logical thought process. I can "prove" morality. Using the principles of democracy as my justification, I can prove that something is right or wrong. My "belief" comes from logical analysis instead of faith, which is inherently blind. In the end, this means that religion can only be used to govern your personal life. Believe what you want to. Be faithful. But if you legislate on faith, you are restricting others' freedom of belief. Finally, I would say that the president of the United States, to deserve the oval office, must be an American first and a Christian second (or Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/?). In his personal life, he may be as religious and pious as he wishes, but as president, he must act on morality that does not come from religious convictions. Sorry it took me kind of a long time to respond. I guess I don't have as much free time as I thought I did. :? Plus IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll be away for the weekend, so I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t respond for a few days.

What kind of a question is that? A failed attempt at humorous sarcasm. :( Heehee. I'm a loudmouth. That's probably not something anyone would say about me irl. :lol: And speedofsound, I always recognize you because the first time I saw your name and avvy was right after the first time I heard that Coldplay song. Your reputation in my mind would be... levelheaded.

Everybody congratulate me, I finally set up my TV so I can watch World Cup Soccer! I watched all but the first twenty minutes of the England vs T&T match, and I have to say, England didn't do as bad as people are saying they did. Obviously there were long stretches of the game where they were letting T&T walk all over them (and stiffer competition would have crushed them), but towards the end of the first half they started pulling it together. During the last quarter, England seemed to be controlling play 99% of the time. I think if they keep that energy and concentration, they will be able to beat much better competition. Congrats to T&T anyway, they played really well and had some awesome plays.

Two things will happen fairly gradually: 1) Fossil fuels will become more and more expensive as demand exceeds supply. We might even run out completely. This will destabilize, er, destroy world markets. 2) The quality of cheaply available weaponry will get more and more sophisticated, until terrorrists have access to nuclear weapons. These two processes will not destroy the world, but as they build, they will reach a breaking point and civilization as we know it will be destroyed.

Two things will happen fairly gradually: 1) Fossil fuels will become more and more expensive as demand exceeds supply. We might even run out completely. This will destabilize, er, destroy world markets. 2) The quality of cheaply available weaponry will get more and more sophisticated, until terrorrists have access to nuclear weapons. These two processes will not destroy the world, but as they build, they will reach a breaking point and civilization as we know it will be destroyed.

Two things will happen fairly gradually: 1) Fossil fuels will become more and more expensive as demand exceeds supply. We might even run out completely. This will destabilize, er, destroy world markets. 2) The quality of cheaply available weaponry will get more and more sophisticated, until terrorrists have access to nuclear weapons. These two processes will not destroy the world, but as they build, they will reach a breaking point and civilization as we know it will be destroyed.

Two things will happen fairly gradually: 1) Fossil fuels will become more and more expensive as demand exceeds supply. We might even run out completely. This will destabilize, er, destroy world markets. 2) The quality of cheaply available weaponry will get more and more sophisticated, until terrorrists have access to nuclear weapons. These two processes will not destroy the world, but as they build, they will reach a breaking point and civilization as we know it will be destroyed.

Two things will happen fairly gradually: 1) Fossil fuels will become more and more expensive as demand exceeds supply. We might even run out completely. This will destabilize, er, destroy world markets. 2) The quality of cheaply available weaponry will get more and more sophisticated, until terrorrists have access to nuclear weapons. These two processes will not destroy the world, but as they build, they will reach a breaking point and civilization as we know it will be destroyed.

Two things will happen fairly gradually: 1) Fossil fuels will become more and more expensive as demand exceeds supply. We might even run out completely. This will destabilize, er, destroy world markets. 2) The quality of cheaply available weaponry will get more and more sophisticated, until terrorrists have access to nuclear weapons. These two processes will not destroy the world, but as they build, they will reach a breaking point and civilization as we know it will be destroyed.

Two things will happen fairly gradually: 1) Fossil fuels will become more and more expensive as demand exceeds supply. We might even run out completely. This will destabilize, er, destroy world markets. 2) The quality of cheaply available weaponry will get more and more sophisticated, until terrorrists have access to nuclear weapons. These two processes will not destroy the world, but as they build, they will reach a breaking point and civilization as we know it will be destroyed.

Lol thats a nice Satire there. That is how a lot of Americans feel about Football/Soccer, but I guess thats just the way it is. I get that newspaper btw :P Are you sure that's a satire? It seems pretty serious. And scary. The arrogance is breathtaking. :shock: Fortunately, not all Americans are like that.

Lol thats a nice Satire there. That is how a lot of Americans feel about Football/Soccer, but I guess thats just the way it is. I get that newspaper btw :P Are you sure that's a satire? It seems pretty serious. And scary. The arrogance is breathtaking. :shock: Fortunately, not all Americans are like that.

Lol thats a nice Satire there. That is how a lot of Americans feel about Football/Soccer, but I guess thats just the way it is. I get that newspaper btw :P Are you sure that's a satire? It seems pretty serious. And scary. The arrogance is breathtaking. :shock: Fortunately, not all Americans are like that.

Lol thats a nice Satire there. That is how a lot of Americans feel about Football/Soccer, but I guess thats just the way it is. I get that newspaper btw :P Are you sure that's a satire? It seems pretty serious. And scary. The arrogance is breathtaking. :shock: Fortunately, not all Americans are like that.

Lol thats a nice Satire there. That is how a lot of Americans feel about Football/Soccer, but I guess thats just the way it is. I get that newspaper btw :P Are you sure that's a satire? It seems pretty serious. And scary. The arrogance is breathtaking. :shock: Fortunately, not all Americans are like that.

Lol thats a nice Satire there. That is how a lot of Americans feel about Football/Soccer, but I guess thats just the way it is. I get that newspaper btw :P Are you sure that's a satire? It seems pretty serious. And scary. The arrogance is breathtaking. :shock: Fortunately, not all Americans are like that.

Lol thats a nice Satire there. That is how a lot of Americans feel about Football/Soccer, but I guess thats just the way it is. I get that newspaper btw :P Are you sure that's a satire? It seems pretty serious. And scary. The arrogance is breathtaking. :shock: Fortunately, not all Americans are like that.

Who are you again? :-s ShadowFaxPZ, what is a "flip accent"?

Who are you again? :-s ShadowFaxPZ, what is a "flip accent"?

Who are you again? :-s ShadowFaxPZ, what is a "flip accent"?