baron8000

A warning for all This thread is degenerating dangerously, so here's a nice few new rules for it. No Spamming pictures every post, if you find something truly entertaining or original then feel free to post it, but your every sentence does not have to be expressed with a SSB character in the correct pose. IF you think that picture spamming has got out of hand, then do not argue, flame, or even reply - report the post, and I will deal with it if I think the situation has gone too far - responding to spam is just as fatal to a decent thread as actual spam, lets keep this thread as a place to discuss, set up matches and the like, not to be at each others throats all the time, Thanks,

You are using analogies for the wrong purpose - analogies are there to explain a point, not to prove that that one thing is like another (or prove another wrong in denying such a statement). You have provided no reasoning other than "Holocaust is a bit like abortion therefore if you support abortion you are as bad as a Nazi" a statement which is, quite frankly, unsupported and baseless. If you respect that people feel differently, why are you arguing against a statute that gives people a choice? Why, if you accept it is a matter of opinion, and that other people hold different opinions from yours, and that you respect those opinions, are you trying to prevent them having the freedom to exercise that opinion? To do so is not respect for their opinion at all; it is attempting to force your will on others. As for the "need" for adoption, this is not something subjective you can disagree with I'm afraid, it is pure and simple fact; if there was no need for adoption, then we would not be having this discussion would we? If there was no need for abortion then there would be no clinics, no statute and no problem, simply stating that you disagree changes none of this. Finally, your points regarding overcrowding is flawed - you state it is a non issue because most developed countries have declining population, this is incorrect. It is perfectly possible for a country to be overcrowded yet have a falling population. Finally, just to reinforce the social need for adoption, the sheer number of uncared for, neglected and dying children in this world is sickening; let us say we take your route, we restrict abortion. What are our outcomes; even more neglected children, even greater stress on the state (which, in the US is already failing in terms of welfare) even more unhappy mothers, unhappy children and unhappy people. Then, the other side effects kick in - backstreet abortions, a hideous situation, and one that will undoubtedly increase if abortion was criminalised; women have been aborting children from the dawn of time, all that would be achieved by its restriction would be unsafe, unclean, risky procedures that put the mother in incredible danger becoming rife. Abortion is a necessary, if regretable part of modern society, and whilst it would be amazing if it were not needed, it is, and to try to restrict it would be a greater evil in itself.

That is why abortion is such a complicated issue; because it is no longer "just" the womens body, there is another life involved. Exactly, but how do we decide when that tiny bundle of cells becomes a "life"? We have religious dogma stating from conception, medical opinion from X to Y weeks, and legal doctrine stating only when it can only survive independently from the mother. Which such a wide range of potential right answers, nobody can know, and if nobody can know then we have no justification from taking the decision away from the mother. It is for the pro-life lobby, as the ones wishing to restrict personal liberty, to prove when life, or if you will, a soul, is created (as this is the basis of the argument that it is wrong), if they cannot, then they have no right to take the choice from the mother. Scientific opinion is that the life begins at conception. I have already posted the evidence of this. http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prol ... tion.shtml Life in the most mechanical sense sure; there are a collection of living cells, but there simply is no true social consensus as to when life, in a moral sense, rather than a technical sense, begins. This is what is required to make good law (or at least one of the many, many things); there is social consensus that unlawful killing is wrong, thus murder law arises. There is no social consensus as to when life (again, moral sense) begins, or that abortion is wrong, thus it is incorrect to legislate against it. Make no mistake, I wish people didn't have to have abortions - in a perfect world there would be no unwanted children, no mistakes, no rape and no downright stupid people, but this is not the case. We have a social need (and the demographic that this issue affects is generally, at least in my country, pro-choice) for abortion and whilst it would be nice if this need didnt exist, it does, and requires addressing. I still see no good reason, morally or legally, to restrict personal liberty and the choice of adoption. P.S. your holocaust analogy is poor because whilst the analogy works on the basics, the fine details are missing. You are saying that the holocaust and abortion are the same because they (in your view) both involve the murder of innocents. This is like saying that cars and toasters are the same because they are both made of metal, technically true, but pragmatically a failure.

:? Warning, Warning, paradox detected, Foster is quite possibly the cheapest nastiest lager you can find (outside of tesco value-style brands) at least in my country. Try Peroni, Kronenbourg or even something like Becks if you are out at a pub - much niver in my view. Personally, I'm a cider man (hailing from the west country, dog on a string type etc), but at university the sheer amount of champagne that gets thrown around has me converted, it really is a beautiful drink when done right. Also, who doesn't love a good cocktail? A Mojito is my favourite (lime, mint, white rum and soda) - I advise everyone to try it, especially in the summer :D

That is why abortion is such a complicated issue; because it is no longer "just" the womens body, there is another life involved. Exactly, but how do we decide when that tiny bundle of cells becomes a "life"? We have religious dogma stating from conception, medical opinion from X to Y weeks, and legal doctrine stating only when it can only survive independently from the mother. Which such a wide range of potential right answers, nobody can know, and if nobody can know then we have no justification from taking the decision away from the mother. It is for the pro-life lobby, as the ones wishing to restrict personal liberty, to prove when life, or if you will, a soul, is created (as this is the basis of the argument that it is wrong), if they cannot, then they have no right to take the choice from the mother.

These threads always surprise me, are there really still people that think they have any right of command over what a person does or does not do to their body? The most sacred of personal liberties? What right does anyone have to stop another person if they want to eat so much they become obese, smoke or drink so much they become ill, stick toothpicks in their nose or whatever. Its their body, and their choice, and I worry for the liberty of any country that tries to restrict that.

Because of the important Jewish vote in US politics I'd imagine. I still wonder, when deciding where to create a new jewish state, the powers that be decided to pick the middle east, an area not to favourable towards jews to begin with. They'd only been persecuted there for thousands of years, did that not raise red flags?

For secondary school and sixth form, I didn't, exams were a breeze. Then I hit uni, I now revise like a furious man for at least the week before, if not longer, because not revising just doesn't cut it any more.

I want to say...Prince of Persia?

/agree He managed to get allllllll the eejits in one place where they won't bother everyone else My vote goes for William Blackstone - English jurist that wrote masses of both the UK and US legal system and is still quoted and adhered to today. He also was behind the famous "let 10 guilty men go free to stop one innocent suffering" quote (or words to that effect). Without him, most common law (and legal principles) wouldn't be the same today, or even exist.

Lets move the discussion away from piracy eh guys? Thanks.

The specs you posted are almost exactly the same as the PC I built 6 months ago. Literally identical. I play all my games at the highest detail, I have yet to experience slowdown on any of them, even the typical "my pc can run crysis lol" example poses no problems for me (is there a new "my pc can run this game and thus can run anything" standard?). Ignore the Vista-hate, I've had it for 6months and had no problems running games personally. If vista was the broken, uncompatible mess that its made out to be then I have trouble explaining my 100% success rate. I even managed to get DK2 working on it, which I couldn't manage on XP.

I shared this pain, until I found my old conquerors expansion, I'll play in your name.

My cunning subterfuge uncovered so soon, :lol: Also yes it was god of war, continue good gamers

Probably quite easy, but hey, I don't know any obscuro japanese games to torture you all with :lol:

That game is wild arms Finally, 22 pages and I recognise one

I go skiing for the first time in two days...complete newbie to the sport so I may never return, but I hope I survive :D Going to Val Thorens in France if anyone can tell me good/bad things about it? Will be a trip with hundreds of oxford/cambridge students so will be awesome even I suck at skiing :lol:

As stated by many of our members, we already have a thread on this topic, please feel free to post in one of those. Locking this duplicate topic Baron8000

Am I the only non-American here who thinks the American version of pre-18th Century history is grossly misinformed and fantasised? I guess that's what happens when your country's history only spans three centuries (if that). Let's look at the case for guns being a means of self-protection. You can either take two scopes on this. The first way you can look at it is that the likelihood you will ever need a gun to defend yourself is so low it doesn't warrant a constitutional right to bear arms, or, the likelihood you will ever need a gun to defend yourself is so justifiable, that the crime rate is so ludicrously high there's a serious problem with America and crime anyway, thus nullifying the argument that guns help lower violent crime. Either way, I cannot see any reasonable justification for a normal citizen needing a gun. I'm going to ask Ginger a question which I feel backs up his first point, Ginger obviously enough Guns aren't legalized where you live, yet do you ever feel the want or need for a gun at home in terms of protection? It's the same situation in Ireland, guns are illegal, yet I've never felt the need for a gun in terms of protection. If a person broke into my home I'd happily allow him take whatever is in my home, sure I'd even lead him to what he wants knowing my home insurance will cover it, a human life isn't gone to waste (killing or seriously injuring him) and as soon as he leaves I can give an accurate description of him to the cops if applicable. I've been in that situation before, got away unharmed physically, insurance paid for stolen property and he was caught within the hour. Whilst I don't want to speak for Ginger (and I'm sure he will provide his own answer) we both live in the UK and I think both in fairly urban areas (and thus, the standard higher crime rate then the rest of the country). Personally, for the 18 years of my life before I had a gun, I never felt the need to have one to protect myself or my household. Whilst my house is now "protected" by a 12 gauge shotgun, it certainly doesn't make me feel any safer at night and it would never enter my head to use it against a robber in my house unless my life or my family's life were threatened - even then I think I'd rather use a blunt heavy object rather than an unwieldy, dangerous gun. To be concise, no I've never felt the need to have a gun for protection, and even when a gun is in the house it doesn't make me feel safer. I couldn't agree more with the "let them take the stuff and leave" viewpoint.

Was that really needed? I already told them to put it there without all the sarcasm. No, it wasn't needed at all. Thank you MLB for directing the OP to the correct place. Locking this, please feel free to repost in the correct subform here - viewforum.php?f=77

You did indeed miss a memo, but no worries, question answered so locking this :) Baron8000

It was a little mark, and they do happen easily on the face. Toups is the guy I'm not friends with, he took the phone which is the main thing i disagreed with. That makes much more sense, I kind of lost track which names were which friends; I had trouble seeing how you could defend theft. Regarding the mark thing; it doesn't really matter how easily you get marks on the face - as soon as your friends are throwing punches, kicks or whatever at another person's face then there's something wrong. I know that fights can happen when drunk but they are almost always little grappley scuffles that don't really amount to much (and I could see how that could be let go). As soon as actually punches get thrown and marks get left then its serious - whilst your friends certainly don't deserve the level of press attention they have been recieving - you have to realise what they have done is wrong, and indefensible; your friends have committed a crime, being drunk is not an excuse, and there don't seem to be any issues of provocation/self defence or similar. This is what I have trouble justifying.

Well, as I read it (and please correct me if I'm wrong) one of the people you knew stole a phone? 3 of your friends hit a person hard enough to leave marks on his head? Those are the things I'm having problems with. The other stuff (setting off silent fire alarms, peeing where peeing should not occur and mass alcohol and all its resulting actions) don't really bother me, they are all fairly immature pranky/jerky behaviour and frankly have nothing on what you will see at university. Its just the whole assault and robbery thing I'm having a problem with. EDIT - forgot to say something, I have a massive amount of sympathy with you regarding your friends and your experiences with the press, journalists are remorseless vultures on occasion and even though your friends did what they did, that is a matter for the police and courts, not for them to sell newspapers on the back of.

How old are you and your friends? I'm trying to find a way to justify any of the things you (or to be honest, mostly what your friends) did, but to be frank, I'm stuck.

WAR, definitely, I had great fun for the little while I played it (I only stopped because of uni, not because I got bored etc) and would quite happily re-subscribe when I have the time. AOC...well, I've never played it, but from its...reputation on the web it seems to be the most broken, featureless, abortion of a game that has ever been inflicted upon the unsuspecting gamer. Although yes, Nadril will be able to give you much more detail on both of these, I'm pretty sure he will go for WAR, and I have to say, the man knows his MMO's.