warri0r45

War Master by Bolt Thrower (Album). The early 90's was the absolute peak of death metal. If I had to pick a single year, 1991 would be about as good as they come. :thumbup:

The End Complete by Obituary (album).

Ever since getting into death metal, I've had somewhat of a fascination with finding what I think is the most brutal band ever, although overall I still like regular death metal better. So, what do you guys think is the most brutal band ever? If it doesn't fall under typical brutal death metal, then by all means still post. My contenders: Disgorge (US) Suffocation Abysmal Torment Gorgasm Devourment

I love jackass. I've only really seen the two movies, though.

I've not seen it, but what it claims is largely wrong. Let's take this from the official site for example: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php This entire passage does two things: it blurs the line between science and non-science (and contradicts itself in the process; more on that in a tick) and it sets up a false dichotomy as if you have to believe in one of these ideas but not the other. First, it claims that ID is science. Not true. You can't possibly test the actions of a supernatural being, therefore such a mechanism being the genesis of life can't be scientifically verified or debunked. Second, it claims that ID has emerged as a new opposing theory to challenge evolution in the science class. Seeing as it's not science, the debate can be shelved for a philosophy class, but you can be assured that the majority of the scientific community rejects ID as pseudoscience, and the Dover trial in Pennsylvania basically ruled that it's creationism in disguise. Also check out the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document for a clear look at the religious agenda of the ID movement. On the aforementioned contradiction, you can see originally that it claims both evolution and ID are scientific theories, yet it then goes on to say: "Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?" How can science answer questions that are beyond its limits? It's not possible, and it would no longer be science if you attempted to do so; it would be philosophy and therefore not fit for a science classroom. That's precisely why you only find evolution in the science class and precisely why ID isnt science. To address another point that paragraph brings up, it's stretching the truth when it claims that science isn't open to debate or inquiry; of course it is, and biologists debate how evolution occurred all the time. It could very well be the case that no evidence supports evolution or the mechanisms by which it occurs, but that's just not true. Of course science isnt going to debate religion/the supernatural with people, because thats not what science does and religion/the supernatural cant be argued against scientifically. On the false dichotomy point, it sets up one of two opposing ideas: "At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?" However, it completely ignores theistic evolution - the belief that evolution occurred as science says, yet that a god guided it to give it purpose. Besides, it's boxing evolution and natural selection as the be all and end all of the purpose of life in general purpose doesnt begin and end in the science class; in fact, science says nothing of purpose, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist (i.e. see philosophy class). You have to also remember that a science class isn't the be all and end all to what you learn in school. The quote says: "Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nations public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?" The answer to this question goes back to what science is: the search for natural, verifiable explanations for natural phenomena. That's why researchers and science classes focus on the natural and the material - you're not going to know about how gravity or fluid mechanics works by praying or making up a supernatural agent to account for it. The only way to understand them with science is empirically through nature and the senses. Thats not to say that you cant understand scientific concepts in other non-materialistic, non-natural ways (again, this is the subject of a philosophy class). To summarise, there is no scientific controversy here evolution is science and ID is not. You only need to do a few minutes of research to figure this out. Added, the idea that a science class is the place for talking about the purpose of life is absurd, and people can easily believe that evolution happened naturally, yet god still exists and gives you purpose. Its worth being critical of what you see and checking claims against other information before you jump to conclusions.

Every now and then I take a break from living the daily grind, look up and stand in awe. It's mostly just a fleeting glimpse, but still, it's a reminder of what's out there. I'm definitely with Assassin and Richard Feynman on this - knowing the vast dimensions of space, the unimaginably massive size of stars and the ancient age of their light sure is inspiration for wonder. Also knowing the likely chance that there is some other life-form out there, perhaps even something like us, definitely makes you wonder. The things I wonder about most are if they're like us, how they live, if they have things like art, love, war, sport or music, and whether they wonder the same things we do.

I Take Your Life by Vehemence.

I think South Africa will be better competition to the Aussies. I have to agree on how awesome Brett Lee was today, and Haddin yesterday. It's good to see Mitchell Johnson get some wickets, too.

"Hit me up on my mother****ing myspace." Haha. There's no reason to worry about people like this getting into places of power. If it's legit, she's still an extreme example of what kids are like these days.

Revealed in Obscurity by Disgorge.

Epoch Of Methodic Carnage by Abysmal Torment (album). Is it possible for death metal to be too brutal? Actually, stupid question. It sounds far too damn good.

IMO thats what makes it pretty good because sometimes short songs are brutal :P Journey - Change for the Better Perhaps, but then again the first and last tracks (Angel of Death + Raining Blood) are the two longest and probably the two best. I find overly short songs forgetable more than anything else. Still very well written and brutal, though. I suppose longer songs give you a better opportunity to put in a memorable hook rather than just making the song sheer thrash-attack. Still listening to Reign in Blood - the bonus track Agressive Perfector.

Reign in Blood by Slayer. The only think I could really critique this album on is that some of the songs are too short.

It was released in 1987. From the official site: http://www.emptywords.org/WORKS.htm But I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was recorded in the previous year. Don't know for sure though.

Unearthed by Necrophagia. Any fellow death metal heads know that these guys released a death metal record back in 1987, same year as Death's Scream Bloody Gore? Doesn't sound too bad, either.

Obviously there are pros and cons, but overall it was good. The advent of industry has allowed easy access to food, clean water, medicine, transport, leisure and all the other things we take for granted these days.

I don't think anyone is calling for them to be silenced, only for the majority to be heard. Everyone has a right to have their say in a democractic society, but we need some perspective and equality in that process. If one person complains about christmas lights and the public display of a nativity scene out of thousands that go to see it, I'm sorry, that one person is going to have to put up with it.

Just discovered another awesome Dutch death metal band. Currently listening to Mankind's Afterbirth by Thanatos. Damn fine music. Edit: Now onto Dawn of the Dead by Thanatos, this time from another album. This is so in line with my tastes it's incredible. :) I'm definitely putting a couple of Thanatos albums on the wishlist.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QVZP3oCNHL4 Learn to imitate this man's voice in every way imaginable. The desperation, the anguish, the hoarseness. All of it.

I agree, that glass eating meme is one of the stupidest things OT has come up with. Get over it people, it's not funny and never was.

Consuming Impulse by Pestilence (album). I think Testimony of the Ancients is better. Consuming Impulse still rocks though.

Why does that bother you so much? Sorry, I can't understand why it does. As for the story, it sounds pretty horrible. Imagine being in the middle of that scene. I'd be scared as hell.

Firstly, I agree with your sentiments entirely. The politically correct tend to ruin everything they touch these days, including Christmas. People should be able to say Merry Christmas and put up Christmas Trees to celebrate the holiday, and I'll certainly be doing that even though I don't observe the religious side of it. The thing is, if you ask people of different faiths, they rarely think Christmas should be abolished simply because they celebrate something different. As far as I can tell, they're quite ok with the idea of people saying Merry Christmas or putting up Christmas Trees/nativity scenes, and so am I. I'm getting sick and tired of the voices of the loud minority being heard over the silent majority, which is why I think the following point you made is very true: Well said, and well done on the extensive research as well. Oh, and Merry Christmas to you and everyone else for next month. :)

I went to the Cricket (ODI Aus vs. Eng at the Gabba of you need a reference) and bought my first legal beer.

Keep in mind though that we're not talking about whether it's likely to be legalised. I'd agree that outright legalisation across America, for example, is totally unrealistic. The same goes for marijuana legalisation, but it doesn't stop us discussing whether it should happen. You bring up a valid point with pimps, though. Not all of them are into ensuring the safety of their girls (whether it be if they're abused, on drugs or catch an STD). All the more reason to legalise and regulate brothels. I think people will see more sense in going to a brothel, where the girls are treated well and get regular checks for STDs, than in picking up a girl off the street.