warri0r45

Well, in the cosmic sense life is pretty pointless, but I rarely dwell on that because there's no point to. When it comes to every day things and life seemingly going downhill, I can't say I'm one to just want to pack it in because it feels pointless. Sometimes I do feel down, but a good night's sleep and some escapism quickly cures that. I've had my fair share of crap to wade through in life, but I'm still here because I've not done what I want to yet.

Great song from a great album. I've not listened to it in a while, so I'll definitely have to do that. As for me, I'm currently listening through Tomb of the Mutilated by Cannibal Corpse. Another album I'll have to put on the wish list.

I'm all for gender equality, so long as it's actually equality. It's interesting that this thread sprung up around the same time as the reverse-racism thread, because in many ways women are like black people (go with me here...). I say that in the respect that sexist attitudes towards men are as inconsequential as racist attitudes towards whites. But if you're a white male and you denigrate either women or blacks, you might as well kiss your [wagon] goodbye. I suppose it's a consequence of white males having all the power in society for so long; we're not seen as a persecuted group, so somehow it's ok to denigrate us (when it's actually not, if we're talking about equality).

The only rational position to take as far as I'm concerned is to see both racism and "reverse racism" as equally bad. Whites looking at blacks as sub-human is just as wrong as blacks looking at whites as sub-human. Now classically, racism has been heavily biased towards whites being racist to blacks, yet that's no excuse for blacks to do it back to whites. Both of us should cut it out. You have to be careful with that example. It's too hard to get inside a voters head and see their intentions of voting for either candidate. Sure, a handful might vote along racial lines because they're racist, but I'd say a lot more do it simply because they can relate with the candidate of their own race better. Relating with similar people doesn't necessarily mean you think other races are lesser than yours.

Cyclic theories of the universe more often than not incorporate the big bang into them. There's nothing to say that this isn't possible as far as I can tell.

No :P Australia's going to demolish us, its bad enough as it is without him. Haha, I know, I know, I was asking a bit much. :P

The Aussie selectors let Symonds back in the team. Here's hoping he doesn't do anything stupid anymore. I think any fan of cricket (Aussies in particular) would love to see him get a regular spot in the test team, so here's hoping that he rips into the Kiwis as well.

Effigy Of The Forgotten by Suffocation (album). It's around 17 years old and I still say it wipes the floor with nearly all other brutal death metal albums created to this date.

I'm not really into buying everything by an artist on the spot because of hearing one thing, but I have heard an album by a band called Blotted Science and I could tell straight away that the guitarist is excellent. I'm talking a Vai/Petrucci-esque talent. His name is Ron Jarzombek. Check out his chops in Synaptic Plasticity (mind you, the picture in this video is of a former band that Ron was in; it's not Blotted Science).

Just listened through Album of the Year by Faith No More. Great album, instantly appealing.

That's true, actually, but I've not heard much Techno-metal or the other fusion genres there, so I don't know how much the non-metal genres that are "fused in" predominate. Obviously, then, this list is probably better seen as the "Metal Sub-Genre and Fusion-Genre Dictionary". I don't think some people here would like that, but I wouldn't mind.

That's arguable. They're probably better defined as fusion genres, not "true" metal subgenres. Metalcore would be some form of metal fused with hardcore punk, while Nu Metal would be some form of metal fused with hip-hop or perhaps even funk influences. In my view, there should be some visible genealogy from classic (heavy) metal to the genre in question for it to be considered a valid metal subgenre. For example, Death Metal got much of it's chops from mid-80's thrash, with acts like Slayer prime among its influences. With extra furiosity and the advent of harsh vocals ("death growls" - check out Chuck Schuldiner for a good example), Death Metal was born out of thrash.

Atheism doesn't involve morals. People who don't like your morals are "forcing" their morals on you if they seek to change to law with regards to gay marriage.

The Erosion of Sanity by Gorguts: Consuming Impulse and Testimony Of The Ancients by Pestilence: Cause of Death by Obituary: Album of the Year by Faith No More:

And that is what we are doing by debating. Logical fallacies are used to ensure that we do so in a reasonable and logical manner. Eh, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I find it illogical to bind your life to the logic of dead men who, in turn, wanted us to explore and find our own logic. Not just decide, "Well, I've looked at theirs, and it's pretty good." He's not talking about living his life by these principles, only running a debate by them. What's illogical about writing off people who claim something is true because it's popular (appeal to popularity)? Am I then to take it by your dismissal of logical fallacies that you believe things become true because they're popular?

That's a very gross oversimplification, and it's wrong. Both atheists and Christians can accept evolution and the big bang. Take these Gallup polls, for example. [1] Even though Americans are around 75-80% Christian [2], around 50% of them accept evolution, be it with or without the aid of god. What you described is the current scientific understanding of how we got here; it's not an atheist creed. It just so happens that many atheists, having no fundamental contradictory religious beliefs, see it as the most logical explanation to how we got here. Here's the thing, Christians CAN'T accept Big Bang or Evolution, the Bible leaves no room for it. And in this case, your logic is an opinion. Everyone has their opinion of how we got here. For Atheists: science or whatever. Christians: God. It's facts to both sides, but still an opinion. Of course they can, because they do. The bible says nothing of the specifics of creation, and many Christians take the genesis account metaphorically rather than literally, hence many of them can and do accept evolution and the big bang. I'm sorry, that's just plain obvious truth. You're still reducing the argument to a false dilemma. Maybe you've not yet been introduced to the concept of theistic evolution.

That's a very gross oversimplification, and it's wrong. Both atheists and Christians can accept evolution and the big bang. Take these Gallup polls, for example. [1] Even though Americans are around 75-80% Christian [2], around 50% of them accept evolution, be it with or without the aid of god. What you described is the current scientific understanding of how we got here; it's not an atheist creed. It just so happens that many atheists, having no fundamental contradictory religious beliefs, see it as the most logical explanation to how we got here.

Bloodthirst by Cannibal Corpse (album). Pretty damn awesome. I'll put it on the wishlist.

Odors of Existence by Gorguts. Almost sounds like some of the material on Malevolent Creation's Retribution. Love it. Edit: Currenly listening through Considered Dead by Gorguts (album). I'm in death metal heaven. :D

Just to change my opinion here, I now think Suffocation are more accurately described as brutal technical death metal, i.e. both in one. Perhaps you could make that another subgenre... (I know a lot of this seems pedantic and meaningless, but it's not like this is a debate or anything).

You don't know how good it is, living in a time zone 10 hours behind yours, to wake up on a Sunday morning and watch a good NRL game first thing. Your game's just a good 5mph faster than ours. So yeah, Rugby League. I don't think there's ever a dull RL game, and there's always something happening. I often hear that our brand of RL is the best in the world, so it's good to get some sort of confirmation of that from someone from the UK. I think I can make a stronger argument for State Of Origin being the toughest RL ever fought, probably more so than international matches. The anticipation for this three game series every year is so intense, but the games are outright brutal. It's almost freakish how closely fought the spectacle is after its 28 years as well. I think that's why many people see it as one of the pinnacles of the rugby leage season - it's such a damn good contest, and you can never accurately write off either team. I suppose if you're a fan of the game you watch the State Of Origin too?

Well we can get popularity over and done with right away. I'm pretty sure it's soccer (football). As for my personal opinion for which is the best to watch, I'd probably say something like rugby league, specifically the State Of Origin series.

God set up nature, so according to your beliefs he would have known the outcome, i.e. miscarriages for a significant proportion of pregnancies. You didn't really answer his criticism at all as far as I'm concerned. What right do pro-lifers have to call people "baby killers" or "murderers" if god is the biggest abortionist (albeit indirectly) of them all? And just to add to another point that's been brought up, the debate about the semantics of human life isn't the issue for many pro-choice people who have been exposed to the issue and thought about it. The considerations for them are, as GW said, at what point the fetus feels pain, whether the rights of the mother should outweigh the rights of the fetus given the developmental stage, and, whether it's fair to bring the child up should their life be one of poverty and struggle.

"Are" should be "is", my friend. This is a huge contradiction, for two reasons. Reason one: in your signature, you preach about how Tip.It forum should take a grammar lesson before joining, and yet you have a blatant grammar error here. Reason two: your notion of "95% of the male population of my school are drooling morons" is a complete contradiction seeing you have an aforementioned grammar error in that sentence. To answer the question of this thread: ignorant people annoy me. Grammar nazis, and more broadly pedants, annoy me. So what if he has a signature preaching about grammar when he made one minuscule grammatical error? He's only human, and from time to time even the most eloquent writers make mistakes with their grammar. If you were looking at it like any sensible person would, you would see that his signature and every other one like it is in response to the kind of people who can't form a coherent sentence at all, not to every minor grammatical mistake. Your second reason brings in why pedantic people annoy me: all your little quips and gripes are so petty and distorted that all sense of reality and reasonableness is squeezed out of them. That comment was made in response to the male population of his school drooling over girls, and you think it's fair to equate that kind of moron-ship with making one tiny grammatical error? That's pathetic.

Maybe so, but that's rarely the case. It's more likely to be some pedantic correction which makes no difference to how the corrector understands the post. What pisses me off the most is when grammar Nazis act as if they don't know what you're talking about because of one tiny typo. You know, when they repeat what you've said, typo and all, acting completely oblivious when they know exactly what you're talking about. That kind of thing is really snide and condescending.