Satenza

LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s also point out that even if homosexuality takes place post-birth then that does not mean whatever subconscious change occurs is brought into a single conscious dilemma at one moment, when we are to choose our orientation as I am sure the majority of people will be in agreement with. I find it very misrepresenting when you identify a subconscious event as being a "choice". In the same way I find all your sources as warrior has mentioned, not to represent any choice or even to falsify that there could be a genetic element to orientation.

An abstraction of the world.

ThereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a distinction between being homophobic and disapproving of homosexuality. You out of at least respect for your own beliefs, will not ignore the heart of the question by throwing around stereotypes and arguments that look to be constructed by children. Also I understand that your point was probably referring to a chaos in morality as well. We must identify the difference between morality and politics, most importantly the difference between what is right, and what is best for society. You may believe homophobia is alright if everything is chaotic and nothing is fixed, and you may be correct. It is not however healthy as a society to allow people to race around inciting hatred. This is why we have laws that protect various minorities. The question is not one of morality or even nature, it is a political question.

You shouldn't throw that away. I've been in hospital from alcohol before but I don't really regret it as such because it taught me not to be a pillock with it. Life's about learning your right and wrongs and if you gave that up, you wouldn't know to be sensible with it now :) But I am not sensible with it now. I have not learnt :P

Everytime i drink to much.

Defender please read what people actually say to you on the subject. Maybe even think through your post. Something as riddled with inaccuracies and prejudices does not show you in good character. At least base your arguments on the sole fact that your scripture condemns it. I did not find one reason in your post that was not subservient to prejudice, inaccuracy or personal taste. The only thing that remotley interests me about your post was; Its full of irony, but anyway, when was the world in a better shape? Every century is full of bloody war and injustice. At least we are no longer killing our own people for believing different to ourselves.

With due respect I do not believe that it is possible for one to genuinely be Christian, know what the Bible says, and still reject the Bible as God's word (and consiquentially the highest possible authority in matters of ethics). Any two of those three statements can be true of a person but not all three at the same time by the same person. However that is somewhat off topic and beyond this I have no intention of defending that possition here. I am well aware that my possition is unpopular, however let me attempt to reclarify. Homosexuality, like many things in human affairs, is not God's intended plan; it is a biproduct of the fall and a corruption of what was intended. "All have sinned and fallen short the glory of God." You, me, everybody. Don't ask me how it is possible that God is who HE is and yet the world is imperfect... I have no idea. However the fact that such is the case does not necessarilly mean, as you seem to believe, that God is behind the imperfections in the world. All that is necessarilly true is that God allows them for some reason. In the specific instance that is being discussed this means that God is not necessarilly behind homosexuality any more then he is necessarilly behind adultry, murder, theft, or any of the other actions that are frowned upon by HIS Book. All that it has to mean is that God allows them to exist. Like you just said...HIS book...In that book he created EVERYTHING on the world. So he created bi/Gay. I think there is a distinction between creating everything and allowing for a corruption of what is created. Just as a tailor makes a suit and allows his client to rip it, God can create humans and allow for them to corrupt their existence. I would agree with Zealot, I do not think you can genuinely be Christian and at the same time propose that acting upon sexual desires with the same sex is what is intended for humanity. I dislike this weak-line of religious thought; if you accept Gods incorruptible word then you accept that acting upon homosexual desire is a sin. That being said, I also would compare this lucid thinking to that of the religious 'extremists'. I can not see why they are called extremists, their thought is just as comparable to liberal Christians as they both deny following religious code in the way it is intended. I would claim Zealots stance is the most credible Christian position you can take. On situations like this it makes me happy I am agnostic.

That's more of a departure from normal species functioning though. Homosexuality is just a variation of an attribute of normal species functioning. What do you mean by "normal species functioning", and how does it apply to homosexuality and not blindness? Blindness is a lack of something physical whereas homosexuality is not a lack of anything substantial. It affects only which sex you prefer, it does not render anything useless like blindness does to sight. It perhaps makes your attraction to the opposite sex non-existence and this is why it is a variation, just as your attraction to the same sex is absent. You can clearly say that homosexuality is a negative attribute from a hard-evolutionary line, which I guess is what you were saying earlier. I think this type of proposition can never really be fully explained from a purely scientific viewpoint because it never offers an analysis of a situation. Just like I could say that the reason I am sat in my chair is because my legs are bent and muscles contracted. It tells me why I am sat in my chair but it does not give a satisfactory answer. Regardless I do not judge people on whether they accept homosexuality or not. As I believe everything is relative, its true homosexuality could be negative just in the same way being straight could be negative depending on the situation we are thrown into.

In this half-hour writing spree would you concerntrate soley on the USA or would you recall that Britain and France were also guilty of this crime after World War 2? It is injust to blame the USA completley for stamping out ideologies when all the allied forces divided up Europe into zones of influence and set up governments for their own needs. Russia is guilty as well, the only difference is that Russia's collapse of power over its puppet regimes finally completly collapsed nearly twenty years ago now, and that collapse was hardly a bloodless transition.

But by removing their free will he will of lied and God cannot lie. He set a promise in the begining of time and cannot break it. Yes he can, unless you are suggesting that God is bound by the laws of logic? Why can he not break a promise and at the same time not have lied. If you say he must live within the laws of logic then why do you say that God is not subject to the laws of causation? Why are you firstly limiting Gods abilities to negotiate reason and by doing so why are you picking and choosing what logical laws he must abide by? Yes, that was at the begining of time. Then Man and Woman sinned and God and man we're separated by that sin. Man and Woman decided to do wrong and God cannot co-existed with sin. It's not in his nature. So God can not communicate with us now because to do so he will co-exist with sin? Did he not co-exist with sin when he placed a sinful snake into the garden of eden to tempt man? Does he not always co-exist with his creation? Did he not co-exist with sin when his son was sent down to the earth? There is such a thing, I'm not one smart enough to know and remember all of it, but I've gone to classes that have concrete evidence that the Bible is true and that God exists. How convinient. Evolution presents barely any FACTS - just theories and assumptions. Learn the scientific method.

No, there is no need. The only thing I would see it acceptable to carry would be a girl having some pepper spray. When going to university I live right in the middle of the city, i have never had any trouble, there is no need for knives and short swords much less a gun. Whenever i see people buying swords I feel sorry for them. I also think all this martial arts buisness is hilarious, good luck with that.

If you get the license (which you will not) you still have to move to New York and go to Wall Street and physically buy and sell stocks, and you still have to pay some sort of fee. For normal people (only investing $100, you would need upwards of $1,000,000+ before thinking about a broker) that are just playing around with money something like Scott Trade or E-Trade would be the best. Scott Trade though requires $500 minimum. I thought London was the economical capital of the world.

Play more golf, its been awhile since i went to play on a course.

When I am on vacation i sometimes paint, only because of the scenery. Its only surrealist things anyway, and I doubt its any good. Its interesting how different types of paper uses paint in different ways. Thats what i enjoy about it most.

They have shown X-rays of her skull which show no "foreign material".

Ruby Tuesday - The Rolling Stones

So all you're arguing for is this providing an individual counter argument for nihilism, much like if I were to say "I may not matter to the universe but life has meaning for me since i want to achieve X, Y and Z" except you're replacing current arguments against Nihilism by arguing that bending reality can substitute for other things like wanting to achieve things. Again, how is the ability to bend our own reality (which to an extent we can already do) life arrirming and meaningful how does this give us purpose to ourself? The fact that this can not be seen to give a universal meaning to life shows that it is nothing new.

The idea that we can alter our reality by the way we think does not show that we matter in the universe. We can alter the universe by the way we live in it, that does not make us meaningful to the universe. I also do not know how you can jump from "bending reality" to having our own individual purpose. Our purpose is to bend reality? Whats the purpose in us doing that?

This does not counter nihilism, infact it seems to appeal more in favor of it. I believe Nihilism was born out of the enlightenment which does not make it "scientific ideology". Calling it scientific ideology is countering your own argument, if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re proposing that quantum physics disposes of our form of logic, scientific methods and so on, then you are right. It does counter nihilism but at the same time nihilism becomes unscientific. Anyway, on a very basic level Nihilism does not have to be scientific. It can be the realization that life and existence is completely absurd and have no intrinsic or universal meaning. Nihilism stays as a cold and disengaging 'theory' or mode of life. Introducing the theory that the universe is completely erratic only strengthens a nihilistic view, and strengthens it more than anything else, it would render existentialism - the philosophy brought about by the rejection of Nihilism ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ as useless, by saying that not only is the universe erratic but further more we have no real choice in anything and therefore no real freedom or separate individualistic existence.

What the hell.

The prize goes to you for promoting the most boring Earth and existence imaginable.

I agree somewhat, not about the de-globalization of English as it is incredibly important to have some form of universal language. I also disagree with your stance on the EU, as I see the main use of it is to promote trade links between involved countries as it was post WW2 and into the 70's, so I do think is should go through some radical reformations. The EU does promote western democracy into countries wishing to benefit. It has had a good impact in as much as it has spurred forward a transition to democracy for a few countries, which were coming towards the end of Soviet rule or fascist dictatorships. What I completely disagree with is mass integration between countries, it would look as if Britain would be less affected than other EU countries since we are not on the continent, but its not. Preventing the dissolution of our culture is important, just as tolerance towards others is. This is not to say I wish to cut Britain off from the rest of the world, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s that I wish to work together with them, however if Britain wants to stand firm in its position in the world we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be walked over by such organizations as the EU. Economically speaking, having a universal language prevents all forms of bureaucracy, and therefore wasted money. We live now in a freer world, in times before Latin was the language between intellectuals, books are so on were not available to the rest of the population. De-globalizing English would have the same effect; too much of the world relies upon English to talk to people from different cultures and different continents. EverythingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s available in English because itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the quickest and easiest way to promote something to the highest number of people (specifically in the western world) in the cheapest way possible. As we face many problems with the world, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d say it is going to be increasingly attractive to have a universal language throughout the world.

So basically this thread is "Do you think I am Emo?" Well the universal answer is no one cares.

It may not be true now, but it sure as hell was true two months ago. All you really had to do was get a couple of mil from somewhere (whether legally or illegally), then read a merchanting guide and spend lots of time on the forums and/or autotyping in World 2. It was virtually impossible NOT to make money through simple arbitrage. Right -- it's speculating. And until recently, it too was very low risk, if there was any risk at all. Which is why I think it is GOOD that rare prices have gone down. Not just because I don't like them, but because it's bad for there to be a "sure thing" big money maker in the game. How much work does it take to stand around in W2 buying widgets for X gold pieces and then selling them on the forums for X+20% gold pieces? Not much. Right, but you are talking about "widgets". I am not talking about widgets, I am talking about rares.

How can i possibly live up to that? :P click Yea, it wasn't possible. You're completely different. :D Still not looking bad though, as far as I can judge. How old are you? Are you saying I'm not smart, stylish and sophisticated? :P I am 18.