BlueTear

I don't get it. Are you saying a man doesn't have a right to his own body, unlike a woman? You also need to remember that "what the world can hold" and "how many people at our current standard of living the world can hold". You're probably in the top ten percentile as far as standards of living goes, and keeping starvation at bay may very well be possible for three times our total number - I don't know - but I sincerely doubt your current standard of living would be appliable. Big gap between what can be accomplished when aiming for "not starving" and "awesome quality of life". That's not even touching life expectancy. And I can't say I understood the point about adoption numbers either. Care to clarify?

But the act of burning something does not inherently suggest hostility. Or, without copy and paste repetiton; No, it does not. Again; You're free to think Dan an idiot for burning a flag, but it's silly to argue that he was expressing hostility because he used fire (Cremation was only mentioned as an example to show that fire is not a sign of disrespect because it is fire, I wasn't drawing parallells to what Dan did with his flag), and it's still silly to be offended by the fiery destruction of a piece of cloth. Most if not all of the "offense" taken in this thread was also followed by immediate disrepect for, and I've said this before, the legal and ethical code it's meant to symbolize. As to the why? Because you can instill a since of reverence for a symbol into a 4 year old without any trouble. Reverence for philosophical concepts like the rule of law is harder, and requires some actual thougth. It's easy to revere a symbol for freedom, hard to actually understand and respect the concepts behind it. (I just remembered something I forgot to mention in regards to someone's way earlier comment on where you get a hold of a foreign flag to burn in the first place; In an exceptional display of geographic knowledge, attempts to burn a Danish flag a few years ago resulted in the unfortunate demise of a Swiss flag. They're like, right next to eac... Well, no. But if you squint while looking at them, it's almost like burning a Danish flag! The thing was, much to the amusement of everyone with a clue, televised too but I can't for the life of remember exactly when. I havn't tried finding it on YouTube though, so that might be possible if anyone feels like trying.)

Or, in not quite so many words, just about every single talent tree has been to a lesser or greater extent invalidated and is now in dire need of complete overhaul, starting with everyone who would previously have earned their raiding slots based on the utility they offered. Interesting times, indeed.

You blew way past my point. You certainly can burn something with hostile intent. Give me enough time, and I can probably figure out a way to breathe with hostile intent. But the act of burning something does not inherently suggest hostility. Cremation, a religious tenant for billions of hindus and buddhists, is not a sign of disrespect nor hostility. Burning a used flag, is not a sign of hostility. Intent/context matters, and attempting to argue that fire is always a form of desecreation is just plain silly, which is both what Zierro and you did. If DaN said he didn't do it for hostility, then whether you consider his stated reason valid or not, going on and on about how burning a flag clearly is an extreme form of desecreation makes no sense.

Depends on what the position actually entails. If it is the same ol' same ol' any plodder can do, sure, grab the guy who's been plodding for a decade. If it's fast position in a fast moving business where innovation matters, grabbing an "inexperienced" candidate not tainted by "this is how it's always done" can be a considerable asset to your company. "Experience" and "performance" are only really inseparable in RPGs. (Having said that though, I'm just pointing out the flaws on the reasoning, not saying who I'd vote for)

As has already been mentioned in this thread, fire is the proper way to dispose of a used flag. Cremation is also a widely spread practice across many religious (and non-religious) denominations. "Burning something" is not an inherently hostile act. And again; Assaulting someone for pissing on a symbol is showing more reverence to the symbol itself than to the ethical and legal codes people have died to protect. Though of course, worshipping a symbol is certainly easier than upholding moral values. edit: Way to mess up sentence.

Yeh, 'cause letting something as mundance as reality get in the way of your thinking is just totally not the way to go, like, ever. I'm perfectly willing to do violence to protect democracy. I'm perfectly willing to do violence to protect human rights. But equaling the latter with being willing to do violence in order to protect a symbol of human rights - whether the symbol is document containing the human rights, a statue or a piece of cloth - is, to put it mildly, ridicolous. You want to show respect for the people who made the rights you have possible, you excercise them. You protect them. You don't laud violence - in direct contradition to the the same rights - protecting symbols of what people fought and killed for.

Did they give their lives for a symbol traditionally displayed on a piece of apparently flammable cloth, or for a collection of moral, ethical and political values...? I know I'd be pretty upset if some jackass assaulted someone else because of their treatment of an empty symbol rather than showing due respect for, say, the legal code I died to protect.

Who are "they"? I mean, are we talking a bunch of opinionated rich white elderly males who sit around and decide on the moral statue passing through their media, or is "they" part of a public who'll sue the crap out of anything found moderately offensive, whether they chose to expose themselves to it in the first place or not...

Until you've shown that binge drinking is not an inherent part of the drinking culture in the US, it has a significantly higher relevance than responsible drinking culture in Spain. Since it actually does list the criteria it uses for alcohol dependance rather clearly, I'll assume you're refering to the manner in which drinking started, to which I'll answer; Does it really matter, on the basis of the drinking culture in question? You can theoretically argue that early drinking does not neccesarily mean a higher dependence, and cite other countries with a different drinking culture. But for all practical intents and purposes, that culture does not exist in the US, the UK or Scandinavia, and thus talking about it is a theoretical excercise with scant connection to reality. The people who do not drink until they are 21 who live in the US, are less likely to suffer from alcohol dependance. The fact that the same doesn't hold true in Spain is nice, but of little consequence to a discussion regarding youth drinking in the US. You can't disregard the findings of a study examining youth drinking the USA because a similar study performed in Spain would give a different result, when the topic at hand is youth drinking in the USA. In my personal opinion, trust is a two way street. You show up at home drunk - which I'm going to define as irresponsible use - you've at least temporarily forfeit any given right to a personal life. I'm not saying you should demand the password to your childs facebook the moment your child gets one, but as the adult in the little arragnment, if you suspect there's something there you or another parent needs to know based on the state your child came home in, I say go for it. 1) Yes. Good parents are not ignorant. I'm not saying they should run a miniaturized version of Stasi at home, but if your child violates your trust in a way that makes you want more information, then sitting on your hands in aquiring that information is not acceptable. Again, what you choose to do with that information is one thing - and personally, I lean more towards talking it over extensively than house arrests - but a parent can't look the other way out of convenience. 2) "leads to many suspensions" falls under the category of "Can't do the time, don't do the crime". Quite frankly, if you do something that will get you in trouble if caught - no matter how you're caught - you can't blame someone else. The mother did not put them in spotlight, they walked there on their own. Quite frankly, the whole "it's not my fault, I'm not being punished for something *I* did" evident in at least one of the articles in the OP scares me more than underage drinking ever will. 3) Freakishly enough, I don't rate high-school reputation above irresponsible use of what is for that age an illegal substance, and the idea of protection my daughters high school reputation by witholding relevant information from other parents strikes me as downright irresponsible. But then you're back to making choices for them. In your opinion, it's a minor thing. Depending on the age and the amount consumed, I agree with you, it is minor - it still warrants a series of talks at home, but not a house arrest - but I can't honestly say I am qualified to make that same choice for other parents, nor do I think you're qualified to make that choice for me if it involvs my child. And luckily, the track record for youth drinking in the USA is all about drinking responsibly... I'd also like to direct a bit of a boot to everyone who keeps saying "the school can't do that, they weren't drinking on school property". Had you actually bothered with, I don't know, READING THE THREAD rather than glancing at it sideways expecting to absorb all the relevant data through your exceptional telepathic skills, you'd have noticed the bit about signing an agreement when participating in school sport. Had you actually read any of the articles though, as opposed to concluding that "links are for nubs, real posters are all-knowing" you'd have noticed that such an agreement was indeed an important part in deciding on suspensions. In fact, one student intended to argue that the pictures were taken before he signed such an agreement, and would thus be inadmissable.

Last time I was involuntarily thrown into a lecture on drugs the speaker claimed that there's a coorelation between how early you start drinking, and how likely you are to develop alcohol related problems in the future. Basically, he cited statistics saying that the earlier you start, the more likely you are to develop alcohol dependence. You disagree? Interrupting, and knowing, is not the same thing. If I had a kid, I would want to know. I'm fairly certain that most other parents would as well, and if they wouldn't; Tough [cabbage], willfull ignorance does not make one a good parent, and I'd tell you anyway. What, if anything, said parents choose to do or not do about it, is open for debate. A quick talk regarding risks that should be observed, or a six months de facto house arrest. Either way, that's the choice of the parent in how they intend to raise their offspring to legal majority. Making that choice for them by withholding information regarding illegal or potentially harmful activities on the basis that you yourself manage responsible drug use... Meh, I don't buy it. I may not agree with how all parents given such information will deal with it, but I think they have a right to that information. Moving on the other things; On the subject of who's fault it is; If whatever you're doing gets you in trouble if it's caught on camera, you should really be paying attention to what you're doing, the cameras, or both. Can't do the time, don't do the crime. And if you leave evidence and witnesses behind, yes, that is actually your fault. You can't play helpless victim because "someone else" took photographic evidence of what you were doing at the time. On the subject of any damages related to the parent who made the disc's child; The day parents allow themselves to be scared into refraining from doing what they believe to be morally right because the repercussions might involve people being mean to her at school, that's the day when the inmates truly start running the asylum.

that is totally not true, and dont try to argue with me, i live in israel. i dont agree with giving back the lands, we conquered the lands in war they declared on us, Yeah, and then the entire Egyptian airforce left Egypt and bombed the living daylights of every single airfield in Israel so the Israeli airforce was left severly crippled. Amirite? ... and the palestinians who lived there before those israeli came, where are their homes?

I'm not saying gear doesn't matter - gear does matter in WoW - but if you grab 10 warriors, 10 hunters and 10 rogues all with varying degree of gear and put them up against the same decently geared warlock, assuming they all play properly, more rogues are going to win than warriors/hunters. A warrior/hunter with perfect execution of the kill strategy will trip up on gear a lot more than a rogue doing the same thing.

Is the reproduction of the individual really always more conducive to the survival of the species, as opposed to non-reproduction of a segment of the population? Most of the other points I was going to bring up were brought up by others already, so I'll just pounce on that sentence.

No, really, warrior hunter it's about gear. They're immune to my CC's and CC's is the only defense I have except high stamina, so it becomes a question of outlasting (unless they screw up, in case it's not a question about outlasting, but a question of Don't Do That Foo'). A rogue that does a full stunlock + CloS + WotF can basically have me down to 20-40% before I get a single hit in, at which point outlasting becomes moot, because I have to no way to get him off me. Gear wise, the rogue is much more forgiving than hunter/warrior, because all he needs is the DPS to tear me to pieces during the initial stunlock; The hunter and the warrior needs the resilience/HP to stand up for as long as it takes them to kill me. Rogue just needs his abilities.

Gratz Nadril! No, rogues are. Against a warrior/hunter it becomes a question of gear, all the warrior has to do is NOT PUMMEL IMMOLATE and the hunter just needs to press bestial wrath. Failure to do one of those two things properly will result in death. If you do both those things, it's gear. A rogue however, assuming the rogue in question has the PvP maces, needs to screw up pretty goshdarn spectacularly to fail to meet the proper criterias for a free HK. Doubly so for an undead rogue.

Blindness is an impairment. Explain how homosexuality is an impairment.

Basic first aid from service in the navy.

I'd call it natural the same way different skin colours are natural.

Surely all modern subscription based terms of service have clauses regarding temporary outings due to technical problems, as well as the general availability of whatever it is?

The fact that we're online rather than IRL doesn't mean we need to tolerate the kind of unabridged stupidity required to make the statement "if they're ancestor's weren't british, they're not". I don't know what he was banned for, but fresh blood and fresh morons are two different things. Which you, naturally, counter by presenting accurate and modern statistics regarding the same subject from trustworthy sources. ... or wait. You don't really have those, do you?

Am I then to take your response to my question be something along the lines of "No, I would not, but the Pakistani Constitution is not as important as ours is"? No part of the Pakistani constitution allows the Chief of Army Staff to proclaim a state of emergency. Ignoring all the other fun, decidedly undemocratic actions taken - detaining political opponents, purging the Supreme court for pointing out the illegaility of the action taken, imposing a ban on "defaming the head of the state" - there's always that to pounce on.

Yes, that's why recruitment numbers as well as terrorist action has shown a downward trend over the past, say, three years. ... or wait?

You on a trial account?

So you would then find it acceptable to have the constitution of the USA suspended as long as the 3 other things you stated weren't happening?