warri0r45

Haha, dude, I've seen your town on 'cops.'

Almost a fact of life, dude. Unfortunate for the less immature, of course. I for one believe that everyone should be given a chance to prove themselves as mature (well, in a forum situation at least.)

I'm guessing you hate atheists, right? But right there you're acting like a frothingly hate filled one. What gives you the right to come on here, basically label everyone as idots for discussing a beliefs system different to yours and expect to be treated with respect?

Before scientology was even called scientology, before he even decided it would be a religion, it was a secular idea he came up with. Then they realized they could charge people money to take a test, rig the test so they automatically fail it, and charge people more money so they could take classes to fix themselves. Scientology existed before it was ever a religion, and before it was ever "offering salvation." Its entire original intent is different, and is not comparable to Christianity. Interesting stuff. Hey, do you know of any decent sources on the truth about scientology? I understand it's pretty secretive in covering up it cultish nature.

Dude the chasers are supposed to go over the top! Anyone who takes offense has thier head in the sand because the chasers, although major parody material, are what I like to call truth mongers (well, on the odd occasion where a reality check is needed on a particular issue). Great stuff! :P

Heartache Tonight - The Eagles.

The word secular means without religious or spiritual meaning/connection. I don't understand your question. I was just struggling to think how his ideas were secular but then he just 'decided' it was a religion when he realised he could make money. If you look at it that way, basically it's a cult and people are stupid for believing in it (sorry, my knowlege on scientology and L. Ron Hubbard are miniscule). Eh, I suppse then you do make a good point about the intent of scientology compared to christianity.

This isn't so much a detention, but something really annoying about school when it came to mind. Me and my mates sat in this particular spot and yes, we were once a messy bunch. After being moved somewhere else and told any more and we'd get moved from the whole general area permanently, we cleaned up our act. More or less EVERY LUNCH BREAK the place was immaculate, yet, annoyingly, every teacher who walked past, who was no doubt on notice about us, asked us... any rubbish, make sure you put it in the bin... Firstly, anyone that repeats something more than three times is like a tick inside my skull sucking away at the spinal fluids. Secondly, they simply couldn't have LOOKED with thier EYES, they had to continually ask us as if we were all ex-cons who couldn't wipe our own [wagon] s. Meh. Makes me glad I finished last year. Teachers get so annoying.

It wasn't originally established as non-fiction. Even more so, Hubbard created the ideas completely secular at first, and later on decided it was a religion. It wasn't even "defined" as a religion by his own words until he realized he could make money off of it. The original intent is clearly very different. So it has to have a god to be a religion? What about Buddhism? If that's what you're getting at (sorry if you're not) I'd tend to agree. :P

It's some tourist place in Japan, I can't for the life of me remember what it's called though. The punchline however is that it's advertised as "Get away from the crowds and relax at our resort" lol. Haha, a bit tounge in cheek perhaps, but still suiting for a place like Japan. :)

It's important to remember that overcrowding and overpopulation are different things. Overpopulation, in the biological sense, is when a population gets to a point where food sources are not sufficient and predation is at a level where the population begins to deminish. Populations usually settle after an up-down population fluctuation i.e. reach an equilibrium. That first picture's pretty funny, though. Where is that?

I borrowed this from a certain someone - "Don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride."

Sounds interesting, but I'm no expert in physics. :XD: It sounds compelling though, from what I read.

Good question. I suppose I do live for the challenge of knowing about the universe in which I live. It certainly is a challenge at times, but that's half the fun. I also live for sentimentality. Sounds wierd, maybee, but I dig positive memories and experiences. :P

Relative to not getting drunk, it's a true statement. If you like it, it's not wasting money. Say I like to buy Cokes. You do not like Coke, so therefore you say it's a waste of money to buy Coke. That part right there is all in opinion, Insane. It's not an opinion. All consumable objects that do nothing for you in the long-run are a waste of money, even if you enjoy them. RuneScape is a waste of money. Cigarettes, beer, candy, blah blah blah. People like the stuff, but it does nothing for them positively 5 years down the road, infact, I'd wager that most will regret consuming whatever it may be. How is enjoyment not justification for spending money? That seems like an awfully cynical view to have. I'm having a hard time believing anyone actually enjoys alcohol for what it is and not for what it does to your body. Beer tastes like watered-down aweful, and other alcohols are pretty much all crappy tasting, and on top of that, burn on the way down! It's my observation that if something burns on the way down when you're drinking it, it's because your body doesn't is saying "Hey, uhh...Don't drink that..." just as with how you cough when you smoke a cigarette. Anyways, even if I enjoy something, I'm smart enough to acknowledge that yes, it's a waste of money. I played MMO's, and the entire time I KNEW it was a waste of money and that in the long run, it would do nothing positive for me, but I did it anyways because it was fun at the time. Same goes for beer and cigarettes and la-de-da. But whatever, keep on drinkin' so you can get 5 DWI's and spend a few months in jail while someone who smokes pot and sits in their basement gets 15 years. ;) I'm sorry, that's just plain rediculous. Yes, I enjoy alcohol for the taste, namely beer, which, with something like a pie, is absolue heaven to me. You can have a hard time trying to grasp that if you want but making beer and making it taste good is a science. Granted, taste is subjective but that's what annoys me about what you posted; you seem not to realise this and that indeed, some people do drink beers because they enjoy the taste. On your point of alcohol being a waste of money, again, 'waste of money' is highly subjective. If I, personally, buy a six pack to relax and watch the footy with, I'll consider it money very well spent. I'm not going to lie to you when I say I enjoy the effect it has on my body either, just don't take that as a reason to say you can't understand why people don't drink it for the taste. Here's something to ponder; I generally never drink spirits. Why? Because I don't like the taste. You never know, perhaps one day I'll grow to like them. The last thing you posted is nothing short of an insult, really. Whether it was your intention or not, you sound very high and mighty there.

Well, granted, H20 has the gretest say in the greenhouse effect on this planet yet CO2 is the only of the greenhouse gasses which has noticably increased, hence why everyone's talking about it. Why it's increasing and what's the cause is another problem. I just wish that we'd pull our finger out sooner rather than later and realise either way, fossil fuels will run dry and we need to spend now so that we won't be stuck between a rock and a hard place in the future. Those of the position that we do nothing because we don't cause it have feeble minds in my opinion. In the bigger picture we really need to develop ways of new and/or more efficient energy production. I really can't stress that enough if we want to avoid a slip back into the middle ages due to foresight shorter than a bloody paperclip. (note that this isn't directed at you, Lovelydude)

Haha, dude I had that exact same thought while reading through this topic, no joke!

Meh last dig, then I'll let this one die. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/ir/biologywheat.pdf 'Triticum Aestivum' or common wheat, is a polyploid which essentially means it has an abnormally high 'n' number or number of chromosome sets which were dirived from 3 diploid plant species as discribed in the above link, section 2, 'taxonomy and genetics'. The allopolyploidy section of the wikipedia link is quite interesting too. Essentially, meiotic malfunctions that originally cause chromosome set duplications can make sterile offspring which themselves can take on another gamete to even out chromosome set numbers. E.g. species A with a '2n' of 4 and species B with a '2n' of 6 could, though a meiotic error of species A which prevents the '2n' number havling to 'n', combine to form a hybrid with 7 chromosomes (4 chromosomes from A and 3 from B). Anyone with a basic understanding in genetics would know that an organism must have an even number of chromosomes to form a fertile offspring, so how does this hybrid with 7 become fertile? It hybridises again with the 'n' gamete of species B which gives it a new, even total of '2n' = 10, allowing the new species to produce viable offspring. Anyway make of that what you will, sorry if I didn't add enough laymans terms in there for those not all that keen on genetics. As I said, last dig so either pick it apart like crazy, comment, or don't.

Hey, I'm not causing it. I've never cut down a tree in my life. I don't think that global warming doesn't exist, as a matter of fact, I whole heartedly believe that global climate change is very real. I simply do not believe that humans are the culprit, or at least a real contributing factor to global warming. The best scientific results that have been produced showed that international climate change has happened in the last fifty years and will continue in the future. It didn't even specify global warming. (I saw it on the news, so don't quote me) ;P There is no conclusive evidence which leads us to believe global warming is occuring because of human interference and most importantly, carbon dioxide levels. Also, if the polar ice caps were to melt, the ocean's surface (which would be far larger) would absorb a large amount of carbon dioxide, helping to stabilize the gas' levels. (If the problem is CO2.) Silly stuff. What exactly are you saying there? Carbon dioxide dosen't cause global warming or carbon dioxide levels aren't increasing? If it's the former, explain why the greenhouse effect is wrong or if it's the latter, tell me another greenhouse gas that's been on the rise of late (measurably so) or what actually causes the globe to warm. If it's niether, sorry, I'm not all that confident of what exactly you were stating.

QFT. If we legalize abortion we will have less miserable children in orphanages, which leads to a lower amount of kids needing adoption. And if we legalize adoption all kind, more than half those kids will be adopted. A study confirmed homosexual parents are way more likely to adopt, AIDS/HIV+ from birth, ADHD, Autistic, handicapped, etc children than a heterosexual couple. It's a very odd conclusion, but it sorta makes sense. :-k I'd agree with making abortion and adoption avaliable. Both of them makes people's lives (both the children's and the parent's) less miserable. You could argue how it makes a child's life better if they are aborted but I suppose that's where hypotheticals and your imagination come in. Edit: To the above post I'd rather if you didn't try and emotionally propogandize (I made up a word :P ) people. Abortion and murdur are actually two different things by law, definition and logic.

And what would be the benefit of that? Oil companies rake in billions, goverments tax them and talk up thier strong economy. Added to that, the mining industry puts jobs on the table and gives countries material to export, hence more money.

Well, I'm thinking people are talking about preventing people from concieving, which isn't killing people (well, more so than those talking about eradicating half the species or whatever). I'd pesonally rather a world with a lower population but higher quality for the people that actually exist, not an over population and low quality of life for people that now exist and those that would hypothetically exist.

Beer tastes good. You might have a point :P. But I'm sure there are other things that taste good. Of course. The justification you could use for consuming other things could be used for consuming alcohol, if you like the taste.

I personally think 'What I've Done' or whatever it is is garbage. Just my opinion.

Beer tastes good.