warri0r45

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that? You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one. I'll rephrase: The initial quote is nonsense and so is my quote. Yeah, the original quote is strictly non-sensical but it's designed to make a point, that being that we all reject innumerable gods because there is no reason to believe in them be it through lack of evidence, etc, yet atheists just go one god futher than theists. Was your quote making any point other than the original quote was non-sensical?

But Nihilism is only declared over and containing already proven scientific theory. It has no basis in any form of ethic, it's sole core is scientific evidence, and lack of it. And the Quantum Physics Theory has an idea that without an observer there are limitless possibilities, but as they are directly observed the possibilities diminish and collapse upon themselves, even. If you're intrigued greatly, I suggest seeing 'What the BLEEP!? Down the Rabbit Hole' the first half is based entirely on Quantum Physics Theory. (The second half is a little annoying, and is both uninteresting and disgusting.) It's a good movie with plenty of professional commentary. That dosen't make the science nihilistic because it declares no meaning or lack thereof. Nihilism is an ideology seperate from science.

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that? You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one.

Nihilism isn't a scientific idea. Science infers how things work, not what greater cosmic meaning they have. Not asserting meaning is not declaring no meaning.

That sounds pretty awesome mate. I've not taken that approach yet but I think I'll eventually fill our my repertoire of Rage Against the Machine's self titled album (currently learnt up to Bullet in the Head) and I'll probably eventually learn as many Tool albums as possible - currently learnt 4 songs from each of their releases except only Vicarious thus far from their 10,000 days album. So yeah, no shortage of new music for me to learn at the moment. I think the most fun with playing your favourite band's songs comes from lining up a whole bunch and just rolling through them.

You play... bass guitar right? I should try 'My Friends' too. Right now Im learning Snow - Red Hot Chili Peppers, We've gotta get out of this place - The Animals The second one is a killer, if you need a song to practice on your bass guitar you should try that one. The intro is 85% of the song, and he plays it without 1 mistake. Nope, I play regular guitar. Good to hear some great music being learnt. :wink:

So it's pretty simple - what songs are you learning on your chosen instrument at the moment? :) Right now I'm getting used to: My Friends by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, So Real by Jeff Buckley Also, what's your favourite song to play? Got a favourite? Oh man, I'd have to say some oldschool Tool takes the cake for me, something like Undertow.

Had a pretty good day. Spot of fishing, BBQ, etc. Looking forward to watching the Boxing Day Test (cricket) tomorrow. :D

Basically because overdose usually means chance of death. There's no such chance with cannabis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_overdose Of course, all drugs can be taken in excess, but I think people realise that doing so for any drug is bad for you. Hence why some people come in on this topic urging that a moderate use of pot is pretty safe, given you're doing it for the right reasons, with the right attitude and with no medical conditions that it may flare up. The same really goes for any drug or human vice. If you don't do it for the right reasons, with the right attitude and considering consequences on your body and mental state, you're at a risk of getting adverse effects. It's interesting that alcohol, a completely legal drug, can kill you, does kill people every year and is often abused with little regard for consequences (to the point where binge drinking is actually socially accepted in a country like Aus), yet non-lethal pot use is considered worse and anyone who breaks the law in smoking it is considered a social pariah. I'd also speculate that not nearly as many families or lives are ruined from pot compared to alcohol.

No, it normally doesn't cause death. It does much worse; it causes mental damage. I know this because my cousin did marijuana and now he's so messed up because of it. I don't really want to go into details because it's a touchy subject. A few of the people at my school take marijuana, and it certainly hasn't helped them a bit. I always think that they appear much more stressed than anybody who doesn't take it. The problem with our society is that marijuana (everyone I know calls it weed) is accepted too much, and it has a two faced image, the worst part is that neither is completely right. (1) The pro-legalisation side is using the fallacy of the appeal to popularity; it is a flaw to conclude that marijuana is OK on the basis that a large number of people believe it is OK. The anti-legalisation side isn't helping either, it is often utilising biased or inaccurate sources which seem to drown out any factual basis. Contradictory or false statistics are arriving left right and centre and we don't know what to believe. (2) Just one little question though, isn't the fact that marijuana is illegal in most countries proof that those governments do care about their citizen's health, and that they aren't working purely for monetary gain? If they did, they'd legalise it and tax it straight away. (1) Hey? I think you've got this backwards. Your typical person will believe it's bad purely because it's illegal. Most people don't study themselves to see if it's bad and just go with media connotations with druggies, dropouts, and dealers. (2) I doubt it. Basic politics - if you do anything that is controversial, no matter how beneficial it may be, your political career is on the line. Politicians generally care more about their votes. It's as plain as day to me. By the way on your cousin, sorry to hear about that. It's a testament not to be a chronic user or smoke if you're predisposed to mental problems. It's the exact same with not being a chronic drinker or drinking if you have liver problems.

[hide] [/hide] Kind of like mine - I have an S-series: (S-470, life size pic) [hide][/hide] Mine is basically the exact same appearance as in the above pic.

From the source I've got above, it's more like 3 times worse in terms of tar and 3-4 joints is roughly equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of bronchial problems like bronchitis and damage to bronchial lining. But to put that in perspective, I doubt a moderate pot smoker would be doing anything near 3-4 joints daily where a moderate cig smoker would do at most 10 cigs a day? Not sure on those figures.

As long as you're a moderate user, you don't get behind the wheel of a car, you don't operate any heavy machiney, you don't have predispositions to psychotic disease or heart disease and you know what you're doing, you should be able to avoid most to all of the risks involved (or at least reduce them greatly). The worst risks, just like with any other substance illegal or otherwise, seem to come with chronic use. It seems like chronic pot users would be analagous to your binge drinkers. Obviously binge drinking can have seriously bad effects long term as can chronic pot use whereas moderate use of both would seem relatively safe, yet, alcohol is legal and pot isn't. :-k Source: http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/637

Ok, you seem to agree. So now for your new points - how does the spread of the English language or culture hurt it? You do realise if the English culture didn't spread, there would be no USA or Australia, don't you? So the spread of the English culture seems to make new cultures with their own identity and we agree that a spread of culture to other countries won't kill that spreading culture. So what exactly is the problem? I'm bloody proud as hell that I'm an Australian and part of the Aussie culture. I wouldn't even be an Australian if the English didn't colonize. Apart from all that, the motherland seems still have their own culture steeped in tea, crumpets, football (soccer) and very poor cricket. :lol: And an obvious disregard for Oxford commas. :P Personally, I'd rather Britain have left Australia, India, portions of Africa, etc, to themselves, but that's part of their kingdom in the past I suppose. The thing there however, is that it was almost a British invasion, and here, countries are requiring it, not Britain forcing them to do so. It doesn't hurt a culture, but we need to respect the cultures as individuals, and no one should sanction them to constrict to other cultures ideals (or nor shall they steal other culture's ideals), except for in the case of extreme violation of human rights. You kind of just shot yourself in the foot... No, I agree, I don't think us English speakers should sanction others to speak English, yet you said it yourself - the countries themselves (e.g. China) are requiring it, the Poms aren't sanctioning them to do so. It would seem China, then, is embracing globalization, furthur supported by their increasing capitalism and economic growth as part of an emerging world superpower. They are willing contenders in this game as are many others vis a vis participation in international issues such as global warming and international organizations such as the UN. As a matter of principle I'd agree with you that no one should be allowed to take away another's core culture or identity (as long as it's not like one of the examples Rebdragon mentioned on page 1) but if these key players like the game they're playing, it kind of makes that point moot, dosen't it?

Ok, you seem to agree. So now for your new points - how does the spread of the English language or culture hurt it? You do realise if the English culture didn't spread, there would be no USA or Australia, don't you? So the spread of the English culture seems to make new cultures with their own identity and we agree that a spread of culture to other countries won't kill that spreading culture. So what exactly is the problem? I'm bloody proud as hell that I'm an Australian and part of the Aussie culture. I wouldn't even be an Australian if the English didn't colonize. Apart from all that, the motherland seems still have their own culture steeped in tea, crumpets, football (soccer) and very poor cricket. :lol:

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers. What exactly is that relevant to? he probably meant to quote the post with all the percentages of languages spoken. Or he's trying to support your argument by saying China is diverse in languages, but retains its identity as Chinese culture. No, he said countries are able to globalise but also retain their identity, and obviously China isn't if English is a requirement there to learn. What's stopping them from retaining their culture? If you were forced to learn a language, would that stop you practicing your culture? Your argument seems to fail - many immigrants to Australia, if not the overwhelming majority, must learn english (for obvious reasons) yet retain their culture dispite doing so.

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers. What exactly is that relevant to?

I'm not saying to lock people in their countries, but the government has no business trying to promote other languages. And there should be no international language, we all have different languages and cultures, it's called diversity, and it's a beautiful thing. Imagine how boring it would be if we were all the same. I think taking your position to the extreme would promote tribalism and war. My position would be to embrace globalization yet keep diveristy. Don't think it can be done? Come to Australia or some other culturally diverse nation - we've got a diverse cultural make-up yet that diversity comes under the unifying banner of who we are as a nation. Why can't the same be done globally? Diveristy and unity is part of who we are as a species. To me, denying unity promotes divisiveness in the form of racism, nationalism, religious intolerance, etc (or to sum those things up in a word, tribalism).

I think globalization overall is beneficial. It promotes increased trade, diplomacy, cooperation and being able to understand other societies and share ideas to progress as a whole (imagine trying to do something like the human genome project without international cooperation). As for one language for all, I think there is a reason why it should be english - if I'm not mistaken it's already the most widespread (note - most widespread, not most spoken). but yeah, keep all the nice cultural things so long as they aren't a hinderance.

Isn't you poll missing something? I celebrate Festivus! It's a Festivus for the rest of us!

^ Thats warri0r45, true story. Actually the underwear are blue. Haha.

All us nasty immoral, contradictory atheists scare you off?

Haha, parody? Because this is just too funny. :lol:

Carrion - Parkway Drive.

Venomai, I recommend picking up one of his CDs. Great material. I've picked up and would personally reccomend Rant in E Minor and Salvation: Live at Oxford. I think I'll grab myself Arizona Bay for christmas if I can see it in the store.