warri0r45

I know that and I agree. But how much more is it worth? You accuse us of not valueing a soldier's life, then you expect us to come up with some ratio, as though they were a commodity? Even we have more respect for a soldier's life than that. When anyone dies it's a tragedy. The difference is that a soldier has accepted he may very well die in his job. That civilian hasn't. I like your explanation and I'd tend to agree. If it were military casualties and not civilians and an invasion would have cost more lives for the Americans than in the two blasts, I could see it as justifiable, yet the fact that it was mostly civilians throws a huge spanner in the works for me.

1) Truth is what is. Being the falliable creatures we are, we can often miss the mark, thus why accountability in our truth searching is a must have. For example, for many centuries it was common knowledge that the sun revolved around the earth. People thought this was true but it wasn't. We now know beyond any reasonable doubt that the inverse is true - the earth revolves around the sun. The truth didn't change, but our explanation of the relationship between the sun and the earth did due to our improved knowledge and insight. 2) No. 3) Lack of evidence, it's a pseudoexplanation for everything, I prefer knowledge over belief and there is no reason for me to believe in such ideas. Just to elaborate on the pseudoexplanation, anyone can believe in an assumed character with assumed defined characteristics to explain anything. The interesting thing is such an idea somehow requires no explanation itself and is held as if it were an accurate explanation for whatever it is supposed to be explaining. Some of these deities turn out to be redundant when their explanations are more accurately filled by science and cultures lose interest. Take Thor and his proposed governance of thunder, for example. 4) n/a

Excuse me? Justifiable? Let's compare. One Naval Base. 2 highly populated cities. How the hell is that even close to 'justifiable'? It was, as Reb said, barbaric. So, no. Not even close to justifiable. Cept you left out the prospect of invading mainland Japan to end the war. Not such an insignificant detail. I think it can be justified if it is in fact true that: a) Japan would not have surrendered yet fought to the death, this prospect involving more casualties than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. B) A mainland invasion would have resulted in more casualties than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'm thankful for the summer of cricket and iced coffee.

Prime example: U.S soldiers lose 3,873 in Iraq, Aussies lose 2. Howard and Rudd go to both men's funerals and they each get a news story. It's partly a consequence of how many die how often. It's kind of sad that the 3,873 Americans don't each get their own news story and a funeral visit from Bush, but that's basically impossible. http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ir ... index.html It's kind of sad to see a face to these statistics...

Jeff Buckley - Dream Brother Disenchantment - Meshuggah In Death - Is Life - Meshuggah Or basically anything else from Meshuggah's Catch 33 album. There we go, a dichotomy of the whispy angelic vocals of Jeff Buckly to the robotic, detatched screams of Jens Kidman.

:lol: I'm flattered you thought of me. What the hell. I'm sitting here watching cricket with a day to kill, so here's a little taste of 15 mins research: [1][2][3][4] Pros: Lower weight, cholesterol levels and blood pressures. Lower mortality (death) rate, attributable to lower rates of heart disease. Nutritional deficiencies are uncommon. High levels of magnesium and fibre (rich in plants). Typically receive adequate protein. Cons: Vitamin supplimentation and some degree of planning required. Some vitamins, minerals and macronutrients may be deficient without planning. Potential health implications with lack of vitamins B12, D and Iron (rich in red meat). These days with nutrient suppliments and knowing which foods contain the nutrients required, there's not all that much wrong with vegetarian diets. I don't really think there's all that much ammunition to tackle the teacher with. You can question her methods, though.

Does he read anything about transexualism? Have you talked to him about it or has he been open to hear it at all? I'm suspecting not. I find the fact that he would judge you in such a harsh way without willing to understand disgusting. He's your father. He's supposed to hear you out and be empathetic and compassionate. He's probably just as stressed Serephurus. He's not happy about her being a transexual. Then it seems the world is turning against him and he keeps seeing other transexuals. It's a pretty frustrating situation. I completely understand how he reacted. And calling him a hateful bigot isn't going to win you points on his good side is it. Try to make him understand. don't be some kind of rebel and repeatedly act female on purpose. that will just make them angrier. i'm not saying give up, just don't go against your parents too much. I agree.

Just because he espouses a religion dosen't automatically make him not a bigot. By the definition of the word he's acting like one. Religion is no excuse to call your son a freak and tell him he's going to go to hell just because you don't like the fact he's of a different sexual mindset.

Real studio audience dude. No feature.

It's good that your teacher challenges your ideas, it makes you think about what you believe and helps you think for yourself. When I did Modern Studies(which consists of politics) at high school, our teacher challenged our beliefs and views constantly no matter what they were and no matter how they reflected/conflicted with his own opinions, constantly playing devils advocate with us. What did was make us think for ourselves rather than doing what alot of people do - just blindly follow the beliefs of our families/parents. Challenging your opinion is very different from forcing a belief on you. Oh yes, i completely agree, its easy to believe something if you don't have anyone to challenge it. The world would be a horrible place if you weren't constantly challenged on your beliefs because so many ignorant people would live without realising facts. The people who say "you cant state views" you're probably in the stage of school where you learn english, maths, science etc. When you get to the higher echelons of school, taking the likes of philosophy, advanced history and politics teachers will teach opinions but when you answer they will either use their own beliefs to challenge those or just use the opposite opinion. This is only useful for people who are open to criticism and not for those small minded people who would ignore other peoples views. Insulting a teachers views by "walking out of the class" is a walk back to the past and ignorance. This is clearly different to the situation in the OP. What you are talking about is stimulating discussion and opinion sharing when it's in good spirits and topical to the climate of the class and syllabus. This is clearly not the impression from the teacher in the OP.

Yep, I rekon he rocks. :P

The ignorance and bigotry of your father are his problems. The fact that he dosen't know that you can't choose the situation you're in (in respect to you 'betraying your faith and being transexual') and that he has the narrow foresight to call you a freak and that you're going to hell tell how little he understands and/or how little compassion he has for you over his narrow worldview. Does he read anything about transexualism? Have you talked to him about it or has he been open to hear it at all? I'm suspecting not. I find the fact that he would judge you in such a harsh way without willing to understand disgusting. He's your father. He's supposed to hear you out and be empathetic and compassionate. By the way next time I'd suggest a more gentle approach in helping him understand than 'don't be such a hateful bigot, dad'. I don't condone how he reacted or his reprehensible behaviour in any way but I think you could have handled this situation a little better too. Next time don't converse with him about it so bluntly and he might begin to understand. I know, sounds like dealing with him is way to difficult to cope with and being calm and level headed with your approach at all times sounds difficult as hell, but I urge you to try. Understanding is the first step to repairing your relationship and you can only do this by trying to be civil with him. Good luck. Edit: I think Godess has some good suggestions too. I know judging your situation over the net is difficult as hell because there is so much detail that we'd have to fill in ourselves yet if it gets too hairy, I don't think there's anything wrong in getting away from your dad and seeing some other relatives.

Used to do that in my schools religion class. It was good to get away from regular work and just sit and close your eyes. I hear meditation has many health benefits not the least of which is stress reduction.

I posted the above while you were editing, Bluelancer. I agree, it's drawing a long bow to say they fund terrorism because of a $1500 donation but of course I don't agree with such an action and they'll have to wear whatever bad publicity they get/got from it.

If a few disgruntled members of the organisation do extremist stuff without even any kind of approval from other members, they are acting on their own. I disagree with PETA on nearly every issue. But irrationally marking them as terrorists is propaganda agaisnt them. The only "link" to illegal activity I saw was a $1.5k donation to "ELF" (which apparently blows up facilities where animals are tested or tortured with medical drugs, but does not cause human casualties). Barely even worth mentioning, heck, the US government gave over $2 billion in money and weapons to the Taleban in the 1980's to fight russians in Afghanistan, and even they struggled with financial problems. Now USA calls them terrorists (even though they still have weapons and missiles funded by US taxpayers) $1.5k is less than the price of a proper laptop.. You can hardly make a single working explosive with that which would blow up an entire facility. I don't really understand... so the fringe PETA members donated $1500 to the Earth Liberation Front who were considered by the FBI to be a domestic terror threat? http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm According to this, a PETA communications director freely admitted the donation.

That's quite sensationalist. I'm not a PETA fan, being a steak lover, but you make it sound as if they give $5,000 and a bomb belt to a man who will blow himself up in a train... :lol: I don't feel particularly "terrorized" by PETA, what they're doing is crimes against mink farmers, etc... By releasing the animals, or throwing ink on people's furs etc. It's sensationalist, no doubt. But, it may have some truth to it, notwithstanding more than 2 seconds of my own research: [1] [2]

The most dissapointing thing is that she's your teacher. Sure, if it's just some schmuck prosthelytizing to you when you walk down the street, you can deal with that, but a teacher? They have a job and a duty of care not to do stuff like that. I'm really dissapointed in stuff like this. Keep the schools for learning and the PETA rallies for animal rights propoganda.

Minus the Herd by Ion Dissonance. Brutal. Chaotic. Dissonant. Awesome. Can't say I've bought many 2007 releases this year.

What's the cop doing at 7:12? It looks as if he's jabbing his club into the guys face but then again you'd expect to hear more noise and screams of pain. Bizzare. You know what would have been better than just tazing him or even tackling him and apprehending him? Finding a bloody translator. Surely there should be some sort of translator around an airport, of all places.

You're right, prison doesn't always help. In fact, over 60% of offenders are re-convicted within two years after release.[1] However, that means about 40% of the offenders may be learning some kind of a lesson. In 2002, the U.S. prison population was at around 2 million persons.[2] This means up to 800,000 of those inmates may be released with lessons learned. Do they all deserve to die? There are a number of inmates who manage to turn their lives around while in jail. Especially those who seek help. Many prison inmates live normal and otherwise innocent lives after serving their time. It would be a shame if all these now-great people were killed by acts of savage and useless revenge. Because it's the 21st century. :?: Or should we scrap all that we've been striving for? Should we simply fall back to the savage past of our ancestors, killing anyone who opposes us? IMO these "horrible" people are people who are born/raised with a different set of morals. Through proper psychological treatment we can shift their morals into the social norm, allowing them to think and act much like the rest of us. Torturing them with "an eye for an eye" motive is a poor option; it makes us just as horrible and savage as the offender. It's also very rare that the offender learns any lessons. Getting tortured will only enrage the offender more, making them more violent and more aggressive. Killing them is also a poor option; death is an easy way out and in no way should we allow them to damage our society without giving back to it. I don't doubt it... And that is the ultimate power of revenge. :( This is all speculation, but what about high doses of etheogens (psychedelic drugs) as a form of treatment? Take, for example, the LSD thumbprint -- where users ingest hundreds of hits worth of LSD crystals in a single lick of the thumb. The experience that follows can only be explained as death without actually dying. Inexperienced users will not have a pleasant trip, but will come out of it a much different person. The inmate who has committed such awful acts would endure more pain, guilt and suffering than any physical revenge can bring them. They would return with a vastly different set of morals and a changed psychology, often with a great amount of faith/religion. This method of treatment would be relatively humane and not very physically harmful. If it works, it would be the ultimate solution to "punishing" criminals, and the idea that they are "getting a taste of their own medicine" (even if it's only psychological) might even help satisfy our revenge. Society would never let that happen, though. :lol: Aye, this is the major problem here. Any huge society changing ideas are kept at arms length, even if they are ingenious, thanks to politicians who ride on the emotions of the credulous and unimaginative or uninviting masses. I like the focus of reformation coming out of this - if there need be extremes, I don't see any particular problem in 'good, peace loving, society embracing' propoganda. It'd say it would work for most. I like the thinking out of the box associated with the LSD trip, too.

Sums it up nicely for me. They wouldn't treat a doctor, or a lawyer, or a politician with such contempt. Why do the rules change because they're merely check-in assistants? It's not merely because of their job, it's because they are severely understaffed. That's no excuse for spitting and being rude but it's a far cry from discriminatory behaviour based merely on job discription. I disagree. The NHS in the UK is severely understaffed, but you'd never dream of spitting or booing at a doctor as they walk past your bed because you're waiting another 30mins in A&E because of it. I understand the fact they were understaffed is a factor in explaining the que's reaction, but it's certainly not the cause. The fact still remains that there is deep prejudice about the jobs people have in soceity. Likewise you'd never dream of seeing a well staffed, well run airport terminal where people randomly boo or spit at the staff just because of their jobs. I agree that there is a prejudice in society against certain jobs yet in this case I'd agree that lack of staff and prejudice play a part in the cause of the behaviour.

No, if someone cuts off your fingers, you get to do the same to them. Spray painting all over a graffitists property is better punishment for them. Then they have to pay to clean it up or buy new stuff. I'd be totally comfortable with those who seek to systematically extort funds or thieve from others to actually have to pay back all the money/goods twice over, half going to fund the cops and the other half obviously going to the victim.

The weaker and weaker the prison system gets on crime, the more and more I think about revenge. There is no need for revenge if we have law but if it's understaffed and too lenient, we get those primal urges seeping back in.

Sums it up nicely for me. They wouldn't treat a doctor, or a lawyer, or a politician with such contempt. Why do the rules change because they're merely check-in assistants? It's not merely because of their job, it's because they are severely understaffed. That's no excuse for spitting and being rude but it's a far cry from discriminatory behaviour based merely on job discription.