meol

I haven't had to buy a single textbook for more than a year using the Uni library and the State library, and if I needed to, I still could use the City library for 15 a year or so. :unsure:

And this is why I keep saying homosexuals shoot themselves in the foot. Working for any organization, except maybe for a brothel, being homosexual has nothing to do with the work criteria. Claiming to be gay in such an event seems unnecessary and, really, self-inflicting damage. http://vimeo.com/15860116 - Dan Choi tells about him and "Martha". It's about not having to lie, not having to worry thinking that you can get discharged for a slip up, and the fact that the policy was inherently discriminatory.

Finished A Clockwork Orange (by Anthony Burgess) a while ago, and enjoyed it a lot. It's nice to read a dystopian novel focusing on the characters for a change. And now for something completely different, I read How to See Yourself As You Really Are by Tenzin Gyatso. Let's see how this goes.

"Use misleading quotes, everything from Tea Party" I petition all parents of the world to kick their pale-skinned teenaged sons and or daughters out of their basements, and force them to get a real job. The quickest way to stamp out this nonsense is to make them get a real job. "Misleading tags"*. You see, it's funny because you were the one that used a misleading quote. And considering the documents are already out, I really can't see how encouraging people to get informed or raising awareness is nonsense by pale-skinned teenagers that deserve to get kicked by their parents. Care to explain that?

Exactly! There comes a point where government decides that the a morality must be instituted for the good of society and thus the collective rights of society supersede those of the individual. The issue here is that opponents of homosexual marriage feel that the morality must be instituted for the good of society. The pro- gay marriage do not. That's as simple as it is. Proponents of gay marriage do not see it as wrong, but think the morality shouldn't be instituted for the rest of society. They think that giving gays that degree of freedom is actually morally right, and feel that morality should be instituted - rights are only infringed if the prohibition stands. Assuming you actually aren't a noncognitivist.

It does atheism no favour if you misrepresent Christian or Catholic beliefs like that. Catholics are different from some Protestant sects since they don't think the Bible or the new testament is the only source of knowledge necessary for salvation. That's how they reconcile outdated laws they don't follow with some other laws, be it out of tradition or enlightenment. That's how the Pope can issue moral commands, and why holy tradition is important for them. Not that I agree with that at all, by all means point out the flaws in their logic. Just don't oversimplify their position, and maybe they'll be so kind and reciprocate in the future.

Hope thats a good O.O and not a bad one :/ It's a good one alright. ... I think. (He knows it's a good "O.O!" he's just being modest) And i knew it was a good "O.O!". I just was being subtle.

Hope thats a good O.O and not a bad one :/ It's a good one alright. ... I think.

There's no such thing as too much Carl Sagan.

It depends on a couple of factors, like how much they are left on and what's the price for kWh with your provider. Then, if you really were changing 60W bulbs for 60W bulbs, you wouldn't be saving any money. Most probably they are "equivalent" to 60W, you'd need to know what their actual power is. [Edit] Nick beat me to it.

First, I have an honest question. You say they need to know it's wrong for it to be a sin. So it's okay if it's not clear for them why it could harm somebody or otherwise be evil? "They condemn themselves" sounds a lot like shifting the blame. But you are explaining it from your point of view -you are assuming we already know Christianity is right. To an outsider, it looks very differently: "We have decided this behaviour is immoral because it goes against our ethics. Now, let's see, what would an all-loving God give as a punishment for this? What would they deserve? Eternal damnation." Am I explaining myself? And when I meant "without chance of redemption", I meant after death. Even after an eternity of suffering, God doesn't pardon offenders or lets them go on parole, as far as I understand your doctrine. There seems to be more mercy on the American justice system -there are even chances of rehabilitation!. I hate to bring these topics back up, and maybe I'll sound like a broken record, so please forgive. But slavery and the the Inquisition, do they go in the first group of things that won't ever, ever change, no matter what, or were the stances changed "to keep teaching relevant", just because Emancipation hadn't been an issue in the 1700's, or Freedom of Speech in the Middle Ages? The point is, either your morals are eternal, or they are not.

You're so ignorant. It is in Catholic teaching to be against the hatred of homosexuals, there is Jesus's statement on judgment of not forcing righteousness on your neighbor because we have our own imperfections (hence take the beam out of your eye before your neighbor].... Without really going into what Ring_World say, there is something that I want you to understand, from my own perspective at least. -And please correct me if I am wrong somewhere regarding your faith. Hell, i.e. a complete separation from God, is the punishment for dying in mortal sin, and is irremediable, and sex between two homosexuals is a mortal sin, since it invariably is fornication, and is never used for procreation. So your religion is condemning, as far as I understand it, two people who maybe just happened to love each other enough to have sex to the worst possible of all punishments, eternally and without a chance for redemption, just as it would condemn a serial killer. That might sound as "hate" to some people - if you choose to believe that the most cruel and painful of punishments is really deserved. Then, these teachings are often used as a base of legislation in a lot of countries, while the ethics behind it are not obvious to a lot of people, to say the least. And sadly, the whole argument can sometimes create actual hate or fuel some existing from others -who of course are no True Scotsmen Christians, since it's understandable (even if not supported by the Church itself) to hate someone who is intrinsically prone to commit evil acts. And that's without mentioning the feelings of guilt the teachings cause in some people who find themselves unable to change, with some kind of horrible curse bestowed on them. That's the reason, IMO, why Catholics are often accused to "hate homosexuals". And another reason why the Church -and other religions- are so often attacked (and more relevant to the thread) is because their ethics, unchangeable as they should be coming from God, seem to change a lot -you know about the whole historical examples, and condom use seems to be last case-. To quote Stephen Fry, "And what is the point of the Catholic Church if it says 'oh, well ,we couldn't know better because nobody else did'? Then what is it for?" If their moral attitudes change as the moral attitudes of the rest of society change, then who are they to claim more to hold moral truth (and other truths concerning life, the universe, and everything else, for that matter)?

I am a moderator with an a ban-axe and what is this? :unsure: Let's keep it more appropriate, guys. ----- I'd probably never get one myself, but I've always found eyebrow and lip piercings great on some people, even sexy. Ear gauges, on the other hand... ugh.

Woah really? In Germany? They changed it iirc. (Yes, in Germany) And yes, tuition fees of that sort were introduced in 2005. There's some extra administrative and social fees I have to pay (110 a semester), but those are the current tuition fees per se in the state.

Eh, it's 1000 a year for tuition fees here, in an elite Uni. And students are already protesting because of those fees. :unsure: