dusqi

His goal wasn't that impressive, the Chelsea number 26 whoever he is, is the one standing goalside of him, and when Ronaldo comes towards him, he basically just lays on the ground and lets him go round... That's not to say Ronaldo isn't impressive in general, just that this goal wasn't so brilliant.

Can you think of any other reasons that people might have sex? Are they necessarily less 'primary'?

In the context of this town, what is it that local self-government would be able to do that a national government that upholds individual freedoms wouldn't be able to? If it's about pornography and contraception, like other people have said on this thread, why not just have people deciding not to use them themselves, within each family? Surely that's a more of a libertarian ideal? If Catholics are only worried about not using contraception and pornography, then they just wouldn't use them - which they can already choose to do. What this town is really about is not making a utopian town, it's about extreme Catholics saying "I don't want to live near other people that aren't following my own ideals. I wish everyone didn't use contraception and pornography was illegal - but since it isn't - i'm going to separate myself from the other people and pretend they don't exist."

Illegal or not, it's just easier if you can keep the peace. Make it clear that you are only going because she makes you - and then don't mention it any more. Maybe one day she'll realise that it's doing nothing for your faith. If she does not, as is very possible, remember that you won't have to follow her rules forever. Lead by maturity :) To those people talking as if he has a debt to pay his parents: "they feed you!" "they keep a roof over your head!" "I'd like to see you survive without them!" That's complete rubbish. His parents chose to conceive him and have a duty to care for him, and he owes them nothing. Most children love their parents, but nothing can be expected.

My dream car is a car that takes me from A to B, quickly and safely :x I've never really been interested in one with a ridiculously large engine, or one with a curved body shape. Though I'd like to put a ridiculously large engine into the body of a rubbishy old car, and then outpace someone in a merc or bmw from the lights :P

maybe it's not socially destructive, but it shows a social problem - IMO people who use pornography are unsatisfied with the reality in which they live so they need to escape to a fantasy world. Like a drug. It also treats women like objects - merely means to the end that is sexual "satisfaction". I think that the difference between drugs and pornography is that drugs directly manipulate your internal chemical reactions, whereas using your imagination is (as much as I hate using this word) 'natural' - something that you can do yourself without having to use something external. Otherwise, you could say that Science Fiction shows on t.v. reflect being unsatisfied with reality and the need to escape to a fantasy world. Or Runescape - that's extremely escapist. Concerning treating women like objects... I don't know. It's a massive issue. Does the pornography lead to men treating women like objects? Or does the type of man that watches that kind of pornography already think of women as objects? Does all pornography treat women like objects anyway, or does some show empowered women? With women starting to treat men more like objects, is it just something that both sexes are going to end up doing to each other in the name of equality? Can 'normal' people just make a distinction between pornography and reality anyway, and realise that pornography isn't life and they can't treat women that way? Did not men already treat women like objects way before pornography in magazine and internet form took off?

Considering that you're talking to people that already know PHP, whereas you do not, that makes you worse than mentally handicapped. I recommend that no one volunteers to teach someone who is so rude.

Economics :D It helped so much with understanding the business systems that are in place in the world, and the newspapers that are reporting on them.

That kind of thing is hard to quantify and I'm not sure of my opinion on the matter - prostitution perhaps is more destructive, but pornography I lean towards saying no. But do we both agree that contributing to the western world's obesity problem isn't morally pure? and so doesn't give him the right to preach right and wrong.

Too late by then... it's not the kind of mistake that can be learned from... and kids will not just learn from each other's mistakes either... because they're clearly not learning from each other right now with the stories of teenage pregnancies in the media. I think it interesting that you expect kids to understand the consequences of their actions at 14 and to make mature decisions with their hormones, and yet in this new community you wouldn't allow them to leave until they're 18. Sorry to come back to this, since you are right that this isn't what the thread is about, but I think that it's important. I don't remember the religious group who said that "give us a new born baby, and we'll vouch for its opinions by the time it's an adult" - but they were wrong. I think that you are assuming that children will follow what their parents teach. I am interested to learn about these Amish communities, I didn't know about them and will look them up. :)

What kind of comment is that?? It's a town within the state of Florida, which is part of the United States. Of course it has to comply with US laws. Otherwise it's known as a rebel uprising and needs crushing.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/02/cathol ... index.html It amuses me that the former owner of a pizza company which through the sale of unhealthy food straight to people's doors, is probably causing more misery related to obesity and ill-health than a few condoms or pornographic magazines ever did. What this basically means is that Jeb Bush wants to ingratiate himself with the Christian voters, even though he knows that the town will have to be rejected by the courts because it is unconstitutional - he'll be able to say "but I supported it! It's those darn courts that disallowed it!"

Read around a topic which is not related to school work. Something that you're genuinely interested in. So that you remember what it's like to be intellectualy interested in something for its own sake, not just because of school work. Even if you used to like school work, it's easy to forget that because you keep thinking "I have to do this." It's a classic case of what you do affecting your attitudes - rather than your attitudes affecting what you do. There's a fascinating topic, go and read a book about attitudes and how they're formed and can be influenced most effectively :D What's the best way to try and change someone's attitude - to persuade them?

I like T.W.A.T. ...actually I don't, but I just wanted to say that anyway. I was against sending in the troops. However, now that they're in there, I'm in favour of keeping them there, until they help to clean up the mess they've made. Iraq would descend into civil war without the troops there.

I always wonder with that video, if it had been made by a 'celebrity' rather than a random fat kid, would the celebrity have been hilarious and we'd all have laughed with him? Rather than laughing at the kid? The song is really addiciting though :P

I study psychology at university. The latest way that I've heard to get to sleep is to say 'now' in your head, at random intervals. So.. you lay in bed thinking "now..... now... now.......... now................now.....now..." etc. For most people insomnia is caused by thoughts which keep your brain active. Making random responses interrupts thought processes. Sleeping pills don't give you 'normal' sleep, they simply knock you out. They are not recommended for anything long-term. Though I read recently [New Scientist: Subscriber account required to read the full article] about a new set of pills which can keep you awake and alert for 48 hours, and you won't have a sleep debt to pay off afterwards. But still, I'd personally view them with suspicion, since no one really knows what sleep does.

None :) However, we're not trying to start a revolution - some problems can be reformed without having to take the drastic option of leaving and starting a new forum. We're giving our opinions after being implicitly invited to do so (by this open thread) in the hope that change can be made to benefit everyone. Just because the administrators have 'all the power' and can do what they please, it doesn't mean that they won't consider our opinions also :) Sadly if they don't then eventually, as a few people have been saying, some of us will take the option of 'moving on'. But taking the time to give our opinions before that suggests that we like it here in general, and think it's worth trying to get things changed for the better :)

I think that you're far more likely to get injured when you cross a road than when you post a picture of your room on tip.it. I know why you do it, you're obsessed with reducing risk to zero, as is the rest of society. But zero risk doesn't exist.

My teaching style would be interesting for those that are interested, and I'd try to be a teacher that is knowledgable and genuinely excited about their subject... but I just wouldn't care about kids that aren't interested in education - and I wouldn't go far out of my way to 'dumb it down' for everyone else if they decided to be lame. I'd just kick them out and forget about them. However cool and dedicated the teacher is, there are always kids that just won't care. But if you're a highschool teacher, you can't just let kids fail, because apparently it looks bad on the teacher. Which is why I'd rather teach university students - because then it's just my job to teach at a high level, and to picque and guide intellectual curiosity, and when some students fail, it's their problem. A maths teacher of mine came in the room, looked round for a few seconds, said to one boy "I don't like your face. Get out of my class." and that was it. It rocked. He did it fairly often.

It's been in alpha for way too long, I played it 3 years ago (I have a FW pic saved from Feb 2003). I had a lot of fun with it at the time, the archery was quite special. But it's been too long now in my opinion, and the game isn't going anywhere.

If you stop smoking, you'll smell nicer and you'll be able to run further :D

eh, me and pyro already figured out i am a cold heartless bas&^%$, and its a lost cause to try and change me. i like the way i am. :D Hehe, sorry! Already wrote the post (see above, I edited) :x But don't worry, I'm not trying to change you, merely to tell you about some stuff that you might not have thought of before :)

ugh, dammit, hahaha :x Gosh, guess I'll have to start work on Indy500fan now... :P currently by taxes. they could easily be privatized and let buisnesses run them, they would do everything more efficiently and better. Let's talk about roads. Have you seen those 'private roads' that some streets have? Perhaps 5 or so houses share a road which serves them all. They're almost always full of potholes and needing repair badly. So why aren't they repaired? Because whenever someone suggests getting a firm in to repair the road and the whole street can all chip in, there's almost always one house that says it won't contribute to the pot. Why is that? Because the resident knows that if it doesn't contribute, the other houses won't be able to stop it using the new pothole-free road. So, it would get a new road, without paying anything. The same would apply on a massive scale if the whole country was full of 'private roads'... and if you force people to pay for the roads, then it's just a tax, and that's the same as having the government come and do it. Another example? Streetlights. Everyone benefits if there are streetlights, but no one wants to pay for them. You can't stop someone 'using' a streetlight. Other examples? The military - everyone in America benefits if you have an army to protect the country, but given the opportunity, no one would pay for it. I suggest you check out the webpage on wikipedia concerning 'public goods' - which the government basically has to organise (and tax you to pay for), or else no one else will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Ah, so you do care about the poor and needy. Excellent :D

In economics, there are 3 (possibly 4, but keeping it simple) factors of production: The most efficient way to allocate resources is via the market. Having a minimum wage is distorting the market's allocation (much like, guaranteeing a minimum return on capital would be distorting the market). It's paying people more than what supply and demand dictates they should be paid, i.e. what the market says they should be worth. Why do you think that people should be paid more than what the market says they're worth? What is special about 'labour', compared to 'capital' or 'land' ?