Satenza

It would only be for intense debates really even the Sudan topic probably wouldn't be in the subforum. So 2 out of all the topics there would be. Off topic would still be home to the majority of topics. We could also have seperate rules for the debate forum which would instruct people how to debate. So hopefully people would learn something. As well as being able to contribute their opinion to the topic in a more intelligent manner. We even had a ban on politics and religon a few weeks ago because people were too insulting. If we had instructing rules and guidelines that wouldn't happen again.

Just bringing this up again, since if we had a debate forum it would keep at least some of the less intelligent people away who post stupid things. Also people sometimes complain about all the topics on religion and politics, it's true they don't need too click on them. However people tend to take things personally when in a debate and hold grudges against people for their opinions. If we had a debate subforum we could have rules and advise on how to debate instead of how to insult people. Not possible at the moment in the OT boards because of the already huge amount of stickies. I don't think there would be a lack of topics in OT because of this. For example : The topics circled would go into the new debate forum because they are subject too intense debate. Things like "How Is the EU" wouldn't despite it being Politics because it's not really intense debate. Also, debates like "Circumcision: Yes or No?" require a more mature poster to debate the topic. Hopefully this forum would keep immature people away so the rest of us could discuss things in a better way.

Stupid idea, violence solves nothing. Like those guys said draw attention too the situation. Embarrass him by making him look stupid infront of everyone and hopefully he will laugh it off later and stop doing it. If he does get violent, then retaliate becoming violent yourself achives nothing.

My name represents a cross between Santana the guitarist and Sentenza the "bad" from 'The Good, The Bad And The Ugly'. Play around with peoples names that mean something too you.

but clever people would lay traps for the dumb people they should still be able to survive usdeing there brains..., and if infact the clever people do all die, then surely thats evoloution, isnt that better for humans to evolve? Evolution is not just physical. Humans have evolved into a state where we don't need to fight against each other. Your system would be harmful to evolution if anything.

I don't think you thought your distopia through properly. 1. It's nothing like Anarchism. 2. People sense of morality would never allow that to happen. 3. The individuals interest is self protection. Allowing anyone to be killed at any time would mean the individual could be killed at any time. I don't get why you think a war of all against all is best for society. Intellectual people who arn't strong would be killed off. Society would be plunged into a backwards era and an animal like state. Physical strength doesn't make you a super human of any sort. You don't carry intellect in any regard as to a good effect on society?

Best Actor Will Smith will win. Peter O'Toole deserves to win Best Supporting Actor Mark Wahlberg will win, and deserves too. Best Actress Kate Winslet will win Peneolpe Cruz deserves too. Supporting Actress Abigail Breslin will win. Cate Blanchett deserves too Best Director United 93 will win. The Departed deserves to win. Best Picture The Departed or Letters will win. The Departed deserves it. My opinion :)

I joined. Goal: Pink Floyd - Most played artist.

No, we don't. Everybody's just guessing. Trust me, the secret is still safe and secure. So we establish people about lying their knowledge of the identity of the editor for some reason. :-X

Salo almost made me sick.

Another step towards New World Order and the eradication of individualism.

Thats not anarchy, anarchy is where there is no state and people's common sense would rule. There idealy woud not be any genocide or murder and even if they where commited the people would not allow it. It' just transfering the states power to the people.

What? I don't get your rares.

He doesn't know what anarchy is then.

If you take that apporach then convientley all of Gods work can't be proved by us and by that token, disproved. Which to me is a cop-out. If God can do anything he wants, how would it be considered "disproved?". After all, it does say in the Bible, for God, nothing is impossible. He has no restrictions or laws to abide by, but his own word. And because you can't show evidence of Gods ability, you say he doesn't exist? Great thinking. ~Defender~ We use science to prove things. God does not follow the laws of logic, science ect. Therefore we can't use science to prove God. If we can't use science to prove God we can't use science to disprove him. Quite simple and a cop-out.

Anarchy doesn't promote any of those things.

RAE HAS 300 EASTERS

I thought the identity of the editor was supposed to remain secret to only the people who needed to know. Now it seems every mod and anyone loosley connected with staff knows. You gotta leak.

This is like terrorism. People don't like it and blame Governments when it happens then disapprove of things like ID cards to help stop it. People don't wan't to overpopulate the world, but not at the sacrifice and deem this as an infringement of their liberty. Same with straving people in Africa and the debate about the middle east and whether they should be "allowed" to catch up. If we wanted we could erradicate all poverty. However make all those people free to live and lessen the threat of disease ect you will have a very overpopulated world. At the end of the day it's down too the individual, and humans are selfish.

NYC, went there a few years ago. Love it's culture and art.

I am not doubting that extermists exist for every religion, i am contesting his prejudice against one religion for a tiny section that takes things too far. While he assumed that Christians all around the world are peaceful loving people. Thats my thoughts exactly, how far can you indoctrinate people to think God was justified to kill almost the entire race of humans. However you will mainly get arguments for it's symbolic representation. How a fundementalist would dispute this, I am not sure.

You see, your view of human nature is different to a anarchist. They would beleive that common sense in people would rule, and allow for freedom at the same time. It's essentialy reverting back to a State Of Nature where the state is absent. As i said, depending on what you beleive human nature to be anarchy would work or not work. Some would take the majority of humans to be rational beings by nature and so if someone was to commit murder the people would decide the appropriate punishment. However, if you have no faith in human nature as Hobbes said, life in the state of nature would develop into a war of alla against all, making life nasty, brutish and short. So don't throw out the essance of Anarchism when you assume that it is total chaos, because that may be your opinion but not others. He means you shouldn't go with the crowd for the sole reason of going with the crowd. Tyranny of the majority is a terrible thing. The purpose is not to go against the majority on every issue, just to think for yourself. The majority of people would never allow murder because our main interests are self protection. To have self protection there must be some form of punishment for this crime. Whether the state gives the punishment or the collective individual does not matter. So "grow a logic level or two" should be said to yourself, as going with the majority is not always a good thing, and can discrinminate against individual members of society, and individualism allows for progress for everyone.

Then stop talking about your religion if you don't wan't people to tread on your toes. Everyone's beliefs are subject too disagrement and if you can't handle that go somewhere else. And "Pick on someone your own size" still infers that christianity is a lesser of two evils and that by 'picking' on Islam I will get more of a fight. You didn't mean that at all anyway, you showed us your prejudices so stop attempting to re-word what you said to make it sound any better. ^ That can't sound any better no matter what you say.

Play It Again Sam - This was hilarious, I'm not usually much of a Woody Allen fan but i really enjoyed this. It's about Allan (Played by Woody Allen) who has just seperated from his wife. He plays the usualy neurotic character, yet this time he is hopelessly trying to find a new woman with the help of his friend Linda (Diane Keaton - Who starred with Allen in Manhattan and was Michael Coreleone's wife Kay in The Godfather). You may wonder about the title, Allan is a massive movie buff and loves Casablanca. He see's visions of Humphrey Bogart telling him how to do things with these girls, throughout we get nice lines from Casablanca that Allan tries to use to sound cool. Allan eventually falls in love with Linda who is married to his best friend, cue an ending that mirrors that of Casablanca. It's hilarious and fun to watch for Casablanca fans.

Why does he refuse to let you see it? Also, it's a very funny film. I'm glad we can get back to people who are not offended by comedy.