Giordano

I've never heard of somebody crashing, denting, or scratching while learning to drive. People are just too overreactive and impatient, so they vent their insecurity and boredom through anger. @Sbrideau: Those lessons cost $$$, and in my opinion, a waste of cash if you have ONE patient friend or family member.

It's honestly sad to see so many people not have the patience to teach.

Life is not so much about disregarding feelings but rather, controlling them. You cannot break down at the death of a loved one, go on a angry rampage with your ex, or be a total ass to a more successful guy.

In order to be one of my favorite games, the game has to have A LOT of replayability - so sandbox games have a huge sway over me. 1. Star Wars: Battlefront (Action FPS) 2. Victoria 2 (Grand Strategy) 3. Mount & Blade (Action) 4. World of Warcraft (MMO) 5. TES: Oblivion (Action RPG) Some of my favorates, in no particular order...but all have huge replayability values.

Fluent in English in all three skills, only fluent in speaking Spanish.

Telling a woman you wish she was raped and her family killed isn't 'guys being guys'. Yeah some of it might meant to be harmless, but boys being boys is not and never should be an excuse. Men can bloody well control their own behaviour and if they find it *so* hard to not call a woman a [bleep] then they've clearly got problems. But they tell other men the exact same things. Them calling a random woman a [bleep] isn't so different from them calling a random man a [bleep]. This censor is disappointing. The second [bleep] should be [cigarette]. In that case they should just stop calling anybody names >.< Women do get targeted though and it's not right. What I was basically saying was that, with me atleast, telling people poop and calling them bad names all over the place I do to everybody, sometimes not even in games. The thing is that online we can't tell when we reach or step over the line. You say those things to strangers? Because that's what you're practically playing with online: strangers.

Yes. Lets end it there, shall we?

But how often does that actually happen? I'd like to ask you the same question: how many people fall in love with a polygamist partner and makes it complicated? How much of such a "free-style" lifestyle causes drama and life issues? If you want to argue with statistics then I guess that is fine, but I'll discontinue because I really don't like statistics. Just understand everybody is different (but the vast majority have weak emotional control) and nobody can state for a fact one system is universally better than another, because the words "individual" and "universal" do not go together.

The biggest problems Africa has is corruption and instability. A good democracy would greatly reduce both those problems. A misconception people have is that a democracy is less corrupt than a dictatorship. A dictatorship is more self-centered towards the government which I think gets' misunderstood as corruption. Nay, with a solid nationalist dictatorship (key word here is nationalist; any Joe wanting to get in power to absorb money then leave isn't going to work) like Saddam, Pol Pot, and to the classic example, Hitler, the focus of the government is to transform the country itself into a powerhouse of economic and political power. And when a country has very little organization, a republic with all it's bureaucracy is the LAST thing needed. A republic should only be in place AFTER the country is stabilized. For example, pre-colonial America, self-proclaimed "Police of Democracy" started out as a dictatorship (and I don't mean the King of Britain). The leaders of the Mayflower, Puritans, and Virginian colonies were all headed by one guy and his council which would lead the colony to prosper. Having a democracy there would just complicate things and with all the crisis they had (such as Inidan attacks, fast approaching winter) strong leadership was absolutely needed. Think of it as raising a child. You do not have democracy reigining in the house when the kid is an toddler, or else he'd be eating chocolate for dinner and having an heart attack when he's 10. A parent needs to be strong to guide the child into a lifestyle of healthy, rational choices. When the kid is older, like his teenage years, you as the parent can't decide what resturants he would eat or what shoes he should wear. The kid will branch out and discuss these problems instead of following orders.

It's still the person not the structure of monogamy. In monogamy you can end it any time, go your seperate paths, and shut up everything turns out clean. Again, you can't examine the drama-ists of monogamy and blame the entire system of it because I don't examine the drama-ists of polygamy and blame the entire system.

Not in my life :P You misunderstand me. Your polygamist lifestyle works for you as it would work for others, but you're using your own experiences as absolute fact that every polygamist person would have a drama-free, stress-free life. But you must know, people (not specifically you or I, but generally) will find an excuse to add drama and [bleep] up their own lives. I think that is what most of us are against your polygamist lifestyle: too many people would [bleep] it completely up just like they [bleep] up monogamist relationships. So continue explaining your polygamist lifestyle to those interested, but don't state is as a universal foolproof philosophy. It has it's problems because of drama and while you may not have it, you surely know people will add it to their polygamist relationship and [bleep] over them and others up. This also goes to stating monogamist relationships being absolutely good because if they weren't, such a thread as this would never of existed. Drama is everywhere because people will always put it there. Its not everywhere in the everybody-everything way, but in the "every concept can be [bleep]ed up by drama" - which yours has a lot where it can go wrong.

Democracy is hardly the most important factor to advance. If anything, they'd sell off the country's national resources off to global corporations and the country itself never grows. A nationalist dictatorship, interested in advancing their power, would I think yield a better economic growth. Only after, once the country has a stable economic base, should a republic form. Also military power/wars isn't relevant in this situation. Developing countries are trying to catch up to the First World's average technological line. There's nothing to "invent", the game here is to apply those technologies and ideas to as much of the country as possible. Military power should only be used to maintain the security of the government, so coups and civil wars don't hinder the progress of he country (like the case of many African states).

Drama exists everywhere.

Women shouldn't feel bad about online insults. We all know in real life, they are behind girls sucking up 24/7. :wink:

But we're not discussing that, we're discussing Bill 78. Even with a constent protest, people can still go "[bleep] it" and burn things down.

Any law that forces protests to be consented by both sides is just laughable. Protests are meant to be annoying, disruptive, and financially/politically dangerous to the intended target.

Game of the Decade What really would make it cool is the first's combat. I really didn't like the second's.

The start. I can't figure out where you start. :mellow:

There's two factors to overpopulation: physical space and efficiency . The world has enough physical space to support the current 7 billion people, what it lacks is efficient use of the land. Insects and critters endanger farms, hand plowed farms are the majority, and refrigeration technology is hard to come by in large areas of the world. If every farm in the developing world was as efficient as First World farms, world hunger and thirst would cease and the world won't have an overpopulation issue. Until it runs out of physical space, which can take on several different phases. Such a phase, for example, could be all the land is used up and we would build under/overwater. A second phase could be building upward, after all the water is covered. Then, after all space is exhausted, we would have to build space colonies. As you can see, the problems of overcoming overpopulation is (non-existant) advanced technology, (greedy) political turmoil, and (unchanging) economic principles. Its these three reasons why I think overpopulation will forever be a problem. Only a Heavenly Global Communist state can improve our conditions to fix overpopulation, but lets be real, that's a near impossibility. So a Immortality Pill cheap enough to be sold like commodities, would cause severe problems in the long run. Plus, the ethical dilemmas we'd face with the poor who can't afford/obtain food, much less the immortality pill. It's bad enough we already got Capitalism Guilt clause up our sleeves, this immortality pill is just going to be the icing on the cake.

Yeah it looks and plays great, but I really can't stand the fact that microsoft imposed the 1000x1000 map size. Just...total mood-killer. They did what now? 1000 blocks by 1000 blocks? That's tiny! :blink:

I didn't. <_<

Agnostic/Apathetic which is fine too, if that's what makes them happy. It makes me happy not to worry about it, at all. :thumbup: Lol, I took a spirituality class this semester and the dude defined spirituality as 'how we channel our inner energy (eros/passion)'. A big emphasis was that everyone has a spirituality. Spirituality doesn't imply religion. I guess it's all about how you define it, though. It was always implied to me the spirit was part of the "three pieces of humanity": the body, the mind, and the spirit. I never really understood the spirit part, only seeing my mind and my body being one. But after reading that, I still think the spirit is connected with the mind. The mind contains both intelligence and emotions, I don't see why one would have to separate the two.

Ironically, distracted drivers aren't going to look at other cars, especially at their bumpers. :rolleyes:

So what do you call a person who never thinks about God and doesn't care for spirituality?

I am not suggesting removing organized religion because, as the video said, people would just regroup. But what I'm trying to say, is that (specifically American) people should UNDERSTAND a lot of the characteristics that makes one a Christian were made up by the Medieval church. There's no reason to in-tolerate gays for the benefit of a organization that does not control anything (and if it does, they would screw you over). People need to understand that is all. Hoping to remove religion is an idealistic, unrealistic goal. Be a realist and make people understand the actual history of religion instead of trying to disprove God or trying to remove religion altogether.