Satenza

9/11 made the threat of terrorism on USA soil extremley large, and with that comes patriotism, fear and support when action is taken against those responsible. This "War On Terror" is not only the Afghanistan war, but includes the war on Iraq as well. Whether they shall benefit from the war on Iraq only time shall tell.

Justification for a war in the Middle East would be top of the list for me.

If you propose that America planned and pulled off 9/11 then you have to assume that the same people where behind the attacks in both England and Spain. Thats the main reason I see for not believing that the American Government made this attack on itself. It did give somesort of justification for the war on terror and people have benefited finanically from the attacks but people will always benefit from disaster. It doesn't mean they planned anything. Whether the attacks were allowed to happen is a different issue.

In that case, does "Bloody Hell" coming from a non-Brit count? Makes me laugh when even an Aussie says it. Ah Britain, we have given you too much. Too much!

I like "Gooday mate" from an Aussy :) I had to hear my old science teacher constantly say"in a nutshell" that annoyed me. We got her back :lol: .

Why?

Ahh buckethead. I saw him one time in Guns n Roses, the new answer to Slash and held a grudge against him ever since. Screw him. Bucket wearing weirdo.

You're crazy!

I find you funny. Don't go anywhere!

natural my [wagon]. Do you honestly beleive that at those ages you can posibly think it is what felt natural to them? Sure maybe the 13 year old would fanatasize of it, maybe but realy do it? The only way that would happen is because of peer pressure, not because they thougt it was the normal thing to do. He's just making a joke at the expense of people who beleive in evolution i think :D

That was what I was talking about, his character, the way he acts, treats people around him and so. He's trying to be like them, but he's not. Fashion doesn't really determine 'style', in my opinion. :) And I don't think that was what Zonor refering to either. Im so vain. Anyway, that conversation > This whole thread.

If you watch the movie you constantly see that he hasn't got style. He's just a simple cuban who's constantly trying to prove himself, the way he treets his family and friends. All point out that he's just a simple man. It's especially clear at the ending, the way he acts, the weapon he's holding and the way he's using it. I agree, but not about his fashion sense later in the film when he really does make it. Early on is himself with hawaiian shirts and vests, looks like a petty cuban criminal. Later when he suits himslef up thats the fashion for the time, look at the people around him who are also rich and successful gangsters. They wear similar clothing. He is trying to be something he is not, which leads to his downfall.

Holy hell, almost half a million views.

You misunderstood the character Tony Montana. If there's something he doesn't have it's style. He has style, his style may be a little kitch now but at the time it was probably STYLE

Classical Gas by Mason Williams! Guitar and orchestra.

I don't understand the comparison of that to Hegel's thesis and antithesis. Could you explain that to me? Well Hegel never actually used the terms thesis and antithesis. I guess it was a mistake to refer to the idea of Hegel's, maybe it wasn't his philosophy. My point was simply, that we can never truly know what it means to be [X], until we have been [not X] (see woman/man example). You might think that this person's life is nothing but pain, but until we've experienced death, we don't know that for sure. The smallest amount of joy that the person experiences could be worth the pain in relation to death, but again, we don't know since we have never experienced the 'antithesis' of life (even though its full of pain). Ah i understand, the thesis equals life, the antithesis equals the absense of life and whether or not life is worthwhile is resolved by the Synthesis?

I don't understand the comparison of that to Hegel's thesis and antithesis. Could you explain that to me?

I couldn't care less if I were dead.

That was just a joke, he couldn't believe how many people thought he was serious. Aw.

I think threatining a kid who fought another kid with pressing charges isn't very civil. You can talk things over with the kid and his her parents normally as well. There's no need to overreact and take a KID who gave out six punches to court (that's what "pressing charges" means, right?). We all know that this wont be taken to court, like the guy said; the other guy touched his girlfriend in an inappropriate manner. It's just school yard threats.

It's practical, like I have shown. If we define close minded as not accepting any belief no matter how ridiculous or irrational, or illogical then you would by that be close minded for not accepting the possibility the world is the center of our solar system, or that Unicorns exist. If we define it as not having a rational reason as to why we are close-minded on a subject then it becomes a lot more sensible.

He also recentley admitted to snorting his fathers ashes by mixing it with cocaine. :shock:

It makes you a hypocrite since you do nothing but constantly attack us who openly declare our faith. And then call us closed-minded. I have never called you closed minded, nor have I attacked you. Depends what you mean by attack. What do you mean by attack? Edit: Although by the second defintion of close-minded i pointed out i would say you are closed minded. And by that same definition you are still closed-minded...but let's not get into a proverbial game of "No, you!" :P I think I have a rational reason as to why i am close-minded to faith. So i would fail to be close-minded. It's subjective though and thats my definition to the word. I think it makes more sense than the one i see most people follow. There are obviously degree's. While in my opinion you are to an extent close-mined to some things because of faith (which i don't beleive to be a rational explanation for saying someone is wrong) as I remember our discourse on your morality. However i still remember you saying "not everyone is Barihawk". While i may think that on some issues you are close-minded in words i think when it comes to action you are not.

It makes you a hypocrite since you do nothing but constantly attack us who openly declare our faith. And then call us closed-minded. I have never called you closed minded, nor have I attacked you. Depends what you mean by attack. What do you mean by attack? Edit: Although by the second defintion of close-minded i pointed out i would say you are closed minded.

I don't really know what criteria you must meet to become openminded. I mean, is openminded someone who can accept all opinions no matter how irrational and not discredit them? Example: Would I be close minded ignoring the view that the World could be the center of our solar system? Which is why I would agree with Locke and Adam that only close-minded exists to degree's. However if we take the approach of ignoring and not accepting irrational and illogical views we neatly get onto other more contraversial topics that people like to beleive in no matter how illogical and irrational. I don't think close-mindedness comes in not taking opinion as a possiblity if you have a rational reason why you don't accept that opinion. I think to be close minded you would be doing the opposite of that. On that grounds no, I am not close minded. On the above grounds, everyone is. If you are too open-minded on the above grounds, i think thats what I would call nihilist. I am close-minded to faith, how close minded does that make me?