Satenza

I find it funny you can't "waste your time" as "lifes too short" when defending your uncalled for personal attacks at me which make little - to no sense. But when you make them, i guess those thoughts slip your mind?

I don't think I have ever initiated an argument on these grounds. I only have participated in them when there is a bigger picture. Oh and guess what, this is a discussion forum. What would you like me to do apart from discuss on a forum? If you have any ideas other than talking to people, I'd quite like to hear them.

How is it either ironic or moronic?

I hate arguments based on semantics.

I would have thought it would be Times, since you have to account for the billions of species Macroevolution includes as a pose to Microevolution.

I agree it can't be proven and it is a form of pseudoscience, is this your only critisism? Do you by any chance believe in Microevolution? Obviously cells do not choose mutations, and if mutations are generally bad then their outcomes are generally bad. That only supports the evolutionairy theory. What remains is that Evolution is the only plausible theory to the creation of the humans.

i would have fought. im the kinda guy that if somebody abuses a woman in any way,shape or form they need to get knocked down. i dont care if i would have got my butt kicked, i wont let that slide. even if i did get hurt it would give her a chance to run and get the cops or somebody. Specifically a female? What if someone hit one of your male friends?

If it is a generally bad outcome then than would allow for evolution to become more rapid. Can you tell us what your argument is against evolution because it is terribly confusing.

Well, since I'm 17 i doubt any Chavs would start on a group of my friends. Some are pretty well built guys. However I'd probably just ignore their general ignorance whilst everyone else shouted at them. If they came up and broke the necklace of one of my friends, then it would be quite a show.

Since re-watching it earlier today you could class The Good, The Bad and The Ugly as a war film. Set against the backdrop the the American Civil War.

Microevolution x Time = Macroevolution. It's Pseudoscience, but when to conclusivley prove something we would need to identify billions of species thats the closest we can come. If you accept Microevolution, i can't see why with more time you would not accept Macro (free from religious belief).

Actually technically it's Common Assualt or Actual Bodily Harm. Assualt means only the threat of violence. Common Assualt is the threat of violence and some form of physical touching. This is probably more Actual Bodily Harm but police don't like to spend money on the possibility of the case going to a higher court which ABH would maybe require. That and it's a schoolyard tussle. But yes, i don't think he will charge anything against you, no matter how pathetic you acted towards him.

Heres Dylan in said movie I played also

Maybe she has keepen it in the family. As in, she wants to marry you :) Anyway, just tell her nicley that you cant accept a family heriloom. Tell her it was really nice but it belongs within the family. Perhaps if she still wants you to keep it to bring it up with her parents and ask their permission first.

What the hell, 99 pages is the limit. Sucks. Anyway here is the one i can get True party fashion. But i remember my first, i made a thread about a Jagex impersonator and sithy shouted at me :(

How come when I have a three page debate about morality with somone people always are like "Will you two shut up!" now what Shadow and MyPurpleCrayon go at it for like 4 pages about whether or not he was refering to extremists or not, having the same posts time and time again no one says a damn thing. Anyway, "I know Muslims have experience of getting their point across" i would see refering too terrorism and all that jazz. However since this is all about semantics i will say you did stereotype Muslims in as much as you said refered to them in a generalized way for something that was not neccessarily bad AKA protesting. Someone take a middle ground here, and one of you admit that Shadow didn't actually call anyone extremists in a general way, but he did generalize them as protesting. But anyway. Whats the first paragraph about!

What do you mean the democrats are just talk? Bush is the president of course he would be doing more about it than the democrats.

"The lot" implies everyone, i never said anyone was someone else O:)

I don't even know what you're talking about. :? Who is GhostRanger? Someone who used to come to these forums.

I'll never forget Meet The Fockers for various reasons, does that make it a great movie? :lol:

I don't understand you, all you ever do is simply say "You don't know enough, debate over". You don't accept my attempts to put bible verses in context, then you don't like it when you think i take Bible quotes out of context. You are impossible to debate with because you are so pedantic and trivial over matters which I already admitted. So even if that were true, your defense is that you can't retain information for more than 2 days? This is pointless, I said I before. You're so trivial. I don't even know where you come from when you climb above people and become so egotistical.

As just one example... I've already addressed that point twice. Which brings me back to: You want me to believe your side of the debate and ignore the fact that it may not be the case. Edit: And even thats trivial, you could have just said "I already explained that" and cite where you did. I beleive it was two days ago.

Where have I ignored you? So wait, what was the purpose of you providing me with those individual quotes? I thought it was quite obvious that I was going to put them into a context that backed up my point. If they were all about homosexuality then it would support your point. How do i refute that? By taking on each quote. If you didn't like the fact i did that then you should never bring quotes that are debatable into a debate and not expect me to do that. No, you want me to accept your right answer and admit that the Bible forbids homosexuality universally because i can't be sure you are wrong? Isn't that a two way street? Pointless debating that as I already said that. I don't know why this makes my argument void? Once again, you back out of a debate for trivial reasons.

I Corinthians 6:9; 10 - Yes there are people that disagree with the translation but the majority of scholars, those understanding the context and language that was written, agree that the verse references homosexuals through timed vernacular. When I bought a quote that was under debate into the argument you threw it out. Any quote that is under debate shows that it may not have been about homosexuality and therefore doesn't support your initial point that "Homosexuality has been condemned to many people over thousands of years". I'm sure Bible scholars can argue over hidden meanings and interpretation of words much better than I can. So lets stick to obvious ones which clearly show homosexuality to be wrong over thousands of years. I don't actually see perversity (can you name the Bible which you use for future reference?). Lets put Leviticus into context with these quotes. Both quotes are debated over whether they are indeed moral codes or not. One of the verses that comes before this is the discouragment of incest which is allowed in other places of the Bible without punishment of those involved. Showing that these moral codes of probably only relevant to the people of it's time. Such a reason would be to be different from the Canaanites. Leviticus also talks about the sin of having sex with a woman during her menstruation., something which was thought of to have been physically wrong for you, which is now not the case. However since these quotes actually refer to homosexuality being under debate i guess they have no place here. Lets put Deuteronomy into context. Since it says "The sons of Israel" we can quite obviously infer that these laws were brought about for cultural reasoning. It never says the act is a sin either. Infact if you wish to take this quote as universal then you must be willing to take all quotes as universal sins. Even the ones which prohibit you from wearing a peice of clothing made from more than one peice of material as a universal sin. Wouldn't this be considered pimping and prostitution anyway? Lot is offering his daughters to them men to "know them" in return he gets something out of it. If this truley is about homosexuality then it shows that these laws which show us what is and what is not sexual immoral are only relevent to the situations in which they occur. But under debate anyway. It is all about lust, not about love in as much as it only refers to it as a vile passion. Whether it mean't homosexuality as a whole or just hetrosexual men having sex out of lust. It says "for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature" that makes me beleive that they were doing this only out of lust as they had no women. Not out of anything other as their women had changed from their natural inclinations. Most of them are under debate, most are only to be taken in context (likes the books they appear in) and are not followed even today by any christian in a complete form. Most of them do not class homosexuality as a sin.

There is always something wrong with prejudging a race based only on their faith or skin color. However the question really comes down to does the ends justify the means. As in does holding a predujice against Muslims when it comes to security checking justify that less atrocities could happen. I'm going to say no it does not justify it. If there is such a problem with security that they have to rely on prejudice to stop such acts there is a problem with security. Tighten it up on everybody in airports and those types of places. One day a white man will blow himself up in the name of his religion, then people will agree that it is better to fix security than it is to temporarily fix a permenant problem like terrorism by classing problems on specific races of individuals.