Satenza

Zappa Pink Floyd Deep Purple Bob Dylan Fleetwood Mac Led Zeppelin That's what I listen to most of the time now. Amazing what can happen in a year time. :lol: 3 years later, still the same! and im listening to the band you advised to me yesterday. I ordered the albums :P Heading For The Light - The Travelling Wilburys

I have no idea what i will do, every business or part of the world i want/could enter is risky. Things work out in the end.

I had pasta with with sauce that had fresh prawns, vietnamese river fish, squid and mushroom in it.

Well, that would be my own justification for it. Not everyone strives to create utility. Someone who beleives in natural rights, such as Locke, would aquire their justification to everyone being equal usually by some sort of God. The principle of "rights based interests" is not absolutist though, it is subject to change (although equality in humans would probably never change). You're right, it would only be justification for utilitarians. I think striving for an ultimate, universal justification to impose our ideals onto others has failed from the start. As if it were true there would be no need to do so. Perhaps asking the question of "What rational justification can you give for saying all humans are not equal" would be more realistic.

o_O. Flip that around. How can you hate history!

Meh, even the fair trade stuff isn't much better. They still get paid very little and with things like the coffee market (being completley saturated from head to toe) fair trade companys are kept afloat by them being fair trade, it's not like the care that much about the people who make them - it's just a selling device. But still, it is better than non-fair trade goods. Unfortunatley capitalism needs a proletariat, and the new proletariat are those who will work for literally anything to stay alive. England no longer has a proletariat, we have moved into global capitalism.

Latin and Philosophy are my favourites, with Law being my most hated subject. Ever.

So if not forcing our views on others is RIGHT, then forcing our views on others must be WRONG, make them absolutes? It all comes down to what rights we as humans have and as some believe, are born with. I don't believe in natural rights. Since to me a right is not a right unless there is a law there to enforce it, as otherwise it holds no purpose. Since i am more of a utilitarian, i am inclined to go with "rights-based interests". That is basically if we conceive a rule such as "all humans are equal" it creates utility on a universal scale and becomes a right when enforced by law.

Yes, ideally that is the value of liberalism.

Yes, equality of humans is equality of opinion. You just have to fugure out how we aquire the right to equality first.

Your argument has no meaning though. There is no purpose of it, you have yet to show me an example of the lies it prints and the truth that it does not. Thats what I have been asking you, I'm not going to present your own argument for you.

:lol: Nice car tomato, get a table-tennis board in the back of it!

Unfortunatley your circles here mean nothing. Beacuse you are unwilling to provide an example of what truth the media should be showing as oppose to their apparent constant lies. Therefore, i see nothing wrong with my statement;

So challenging your opinion somehow now equals being close-minded? Or indeed putting my view across so it could be challenged? Thats close-minded? Wouldn't not being willing to being questioned be close-minded? Stop talking in circles that mean nothing.

If your opnions are the exact opposite to mine, why am i the mirror and not you? Why am I the closed minded one, and not you? And to expand your thoughts.

Exaxtly, and so: is impossible. Please, lets stop talking in puzzles and tell me what truth they should be printing.

Oh so there is no truth. Media can't help but print lies then can it!

and protest against people treating others like a wagon for having a different opinion.

Like what truth?

I think (speaking as someone subject to English media) thats quite a big stretch between media desentitization and being willing to travel thousands of miles to go to some hell hole of a place to have sex with one of these women. I saw a documentary on this subject, and it followed a police raid on one of these brothels just the sites were so disgusing any normal human being would never even look or go into one, at least from the western world. Be that pedophiles, rapists or whatever. I also think it's a stretch from Trapical to say our countries won't help because of pedophiles "getting their fix" abroad. China has something like 1.3Billion people and 20% of the worlds population. Imagine the number of crimes, the money of litigation, the reliance on the courts? No wonder these things can happen undetected, the counrtys set for failure because of it's sheer size. It's communist but it's also the perfect example of capitalist supression.

Wha? Pluto isn't a planet anymore because it is to small to be classfied as one. There are only 8 planets, so i guess we will have to find a 9th before the "approach of the 10th"?

In Europe most people live by the philosophy of starting breaking people into the effects of alcohol early on. As in like 8 or 9 with a little wine while eating. Stops people from going over the top when they are allowed to buy alcohol.

Loads of police stations are closing down (Go Labour!), the one near me closed down and it now been made into penthouse apartments :o

Concepts like "judgement impairing" and "brain altering" just aren't getting through to you are they? It doesn't matter how much I trust the person, regardless of age, when they are sober. When under the influence of alcohol, they will not act the same way they would have when sober. That doesn't matter, your still not trusting them to drink responsibly. This part of the argument has nothing to do with the effects. It's the principle, your assuming people will not drink responsibly. Then at the same time assuming the same people will handle a career in killing people responsibly. These effects are not always harmful, they are not always judgement impairing to a huge degree, or even a slight degree. Living in a country were the drinking age is 18, I find that statement fairly laughable. Add to that the fact that physiologically (that's me fixing the typo) has more to do with the growth state of their bodies than anything else. Growing is different in every human being. Most girls stop growing at 16-18, while most guys stop a little later. But it is still different. Are you saying girls that are 18 should have a different drinking age, because thats the average? Where I live, the majority of people are pretty sensible when it comes to drinking (Ages 17-20). Thats not to say none of them drink to much, but the mostly everyone drinks to have a good time, and not much else. ... despite the typo, physiology and psychology is pretty far apart. Unless you're going to make a really interesting argument about the effects of combat? Sorry for the typo, i did mean psychologically. I don't think you could contest the risk of seeing people murderer in all sorts of ways is less damaging than drinking.

Becker, Everybody Loves Raymond