Ducky

Considering I scored a 96%, I doubt it takes much effort at all to get the last 4% pending your perspective. The caged analogies don't hold up though. They are based on what the religion would do itself. (And even that is flimsy considering one of the points listed includes helping the desearving. People, no matter their faith will do what they think is best for themselves. You let him out of the cage so YOU feel good. Nothing more or less. Had you been apathetic, you wouldn't have even stopped. Do people sacrifice themselves for others? Sure. You rarely hear about them though, they are either dead or socially invisible. People who make true sacrifices usually don't end up on television, or in a newspaper. They are the ones letting strangers into their homes to stay, giving away the majority of their possessions to others and basically living an exclusive spiritual life. I would let an innocent man starve if it was of his own will. I would let a guilty man starve if it was imposed across him and I thought his crime was that much. Going to !@#$%^&*? Probably. So long as I'm not bull!@#$%^&*ting myself and know who I am, who cares.

There are. It's around a 3:1 ratio.

adoption

I still hold the same stance on adoption, No matter the sexual orientation, I am convinced that a homosexual couple when screened through the natural process of adoption should have the ability to adopt a child. It's a way for both the state to determine the quality of the parents and a way for a child to be loved. I'm sure I'm not the only one who looks around and thinks to himself "That person isn't meant to have children." when talking about anyone in specific. The ability to raise children is dependant on the individual. There is very little protection for a child when the biological parents are straight unless a quality is shown in which the state has to intervene. In essence, I am simply stating that any couple can have a detrimental impact on a child, only adopted cases are more likely to go better due to bureaucracy. The state of a child is constantly monitored. Alot of my opinion is based on my own childhood and the early years for some of my friends. Having 2 loving moms will always be better than having only one because someone wasn't man enough to stick around for his kid. I don't think "getting made fun of" in school is a plausable rebuttle. Had you been born from a straight family and had bad eyesight, or an extra finger, or a weird hairline; you would still be made fun of.

Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism. Satanism 96% Paganism 92% agnosticism 83% Buddhism 79% atheism 75% Islam 67% Hinduism 33% Judaism 17% Christianity 13% Sounds about right, although I had hoped Buddhism would be slightly higher, although I do ingest numerous substances and take on acts of indulgance. I went to wiki and read up some, and despite thinking 'pre-click' that I wouldn't agree with some aspects, it seems I agree with most if not all of the things listed. The following caught my eye in particular. LaVey's "9 Satanic Statements", a sort of philosophical outline to defining Satanism, were as follows: 1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence. 2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams. 3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit. 4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates. 5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek. 6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires. 7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all. 8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification. 9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years.

Didn't we have this discussion a few months back with the same outcome? Yea for posting at SSforum

His variation works fine. A story is just that, whether you believe a certain scenerio is better or not.

I compared his quote to what happened with Bush. I didn't compare the men. You are just fishing for things to argue about, like I said in my very first reply to you. Due to that, this will most likely be one of my last replies. You waste too much of my time. There isn't any failing on my part. You attempted to coerce me using !@#$%^&*umed details and things you "thought you read" from my post. The fact that I explicitly said there was no underlined meaning to my support of the quote just tosses the rest of the bull!@#$%^&* you accused me of out into the trash. You are correct, a mans actions will always speak louder than words. But I garauntee that viewpoint is changed when someone who you refer to as 'good' says "I hope all ASSS die." See how long it takes for that person to be disregarded by society. It doesn't matter if they cured cancer, because the statement is obviously stupid. Will you support that man then? Under your rules, you would be labeled as a racist you know. That goes the exact same for a murderer saying something true. Why can't I support something someone says and not support their actions. Not everyone good says good things, and not everyone bad says bad things. There is a line. It would have been nice to agree with a quote from the late pope, but nothing he ever said was posted on this forum, and I am not spending the next 7 years looking at quotes from good people. You come post some of those quotes here and see how many I agree and disagree with. Mix in a few sensible ones from Hitler too, see if I can tell them apart. Bet I can't. Just wake the !@#$%^&* up and realize for once I am not attacking your !@#$%^&*ty political party or your !@#$%^&*ty religion or your !@#$%^&*ty country for one !@#$%^&*ed minute, suck it up and go flaunt whatever political prowess you obtain in another thread. You obviously can't see what every other person on this topic has seen. And that, unlike every other post created, can't be blamed on "Liberal media slant that is corrupting our very nature" or whatever the !@#$%^&* it is you advocate. FYI, Herd Instict directly refers to the fact that despite having a seperate logically sound mind, you will forsake the thing you want just so it doesn't cause conflict with the majority or your reputation. Have 5 people cry racist, and 3 others will join in just so that they aren't shunned for going against the majority. Humans are like that in social situations; they go with the flow and will always be sheep. I don't believe it was intended to be scientific 'Herd Instict' in any way.

Again, making nothing into something. "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." Isn't that what !@#$%^&*ing happened? He told us Iraq had WMD's and that we were beyond negotiation. He infered quite clearly that we would be destroyed unless we attacked first. That fits PRETTY !@#$%^&* GOOD to the quote and was the whole reason it was posted. You may have supported him for another reason, but I garauntee this is why he got the numbers he did. Fear. Do you think liberals make this !@#$%^&* up? We all knew what was happening when it started. I am not saying the concept is bad; fear as a control device has worked for hundreds of years. No, that's the problem. There isn't one reason to study it deeper. I won't ever study it deeper because I know that they were just words.Whether they were meant to be misleading words, false words, true words, words spoken from a pig, a demon, a stupid man or an intelligent woman doesn't matter. The words were true and they fit this context. No logical flaws, I demonstrated what the quote meant and its intention earlier in my reply. You not agreeing with the quote and attempting to paint 'What I see' is the flaw. I don't ignore the man entirely. I know what he is and what he has done. That does not change his valid statement and my belief in it.

Why does Japan wanting a seat on the security council sound odd?

His quote was found by someone and posted. That's how it was added to the top of the list. I doubt SD typed "Good quotes from bad people" in google and this was the best match. Him being a nazi or the pope doesn't matter AT ALL. I understand what you are saying, but it's just added !@#$%^&* to the pot that doesn't need to be there. For the most part, most of us aren't anti-semetic(sp); but we are moderately liberal. The quote directly relates to our view on how Bush got alot of backing for the war. SD could have searched 4 hours for a similar quote from a good person, but there was no reason to when there was a !@#$%^&* good one already found.

Nice speech. I would like to add "Doesn't matter, it's true." If I am on trial for murder and get a chance to speak and say "People are stupid," in my defense-- Who I am and what I have done doesn't matter one single bit. People will always be stupid and someone out there will always agree with the statement when the context allows. Doesn't matter if it was lying through his teeth. Whether you sat there and listened or not doesn't make his statement any more/less false. You are just looking to argue about something when there isn't anything to argue about.

*Shrug* It's true regardless of who said it.

*shrug* I support it now, the same as I did in my first post. I am a moderate on the death penalty. This specific topic debates between 'Some' and 'None', but that doesn't mean the position 'All' is nonexistant.

Good to understand. Our definition of "Life skills" differed. My arguement was based soley on those who were never taught some of the things you had listed, either from a parent not supporting the childs education, or faulty education in general. By your example though, we are in the same boat and have the same idea about it. However, I am still a moderate on the issue at hand. There are times when some things are appropriate and others aren't. To say otherwise just seems foolish. You need a middle for this issue, not either or. You will still have murderers if all such cases ended in death penalty. These killers will be the last resort types. Who believe they have little to live for. Want to make a name for themselves in some possible way. The crime is somehow 'just' in the grand scheme of things. You will still have murderers if all such cases ended in life imprisonment. Why care about your crime when you know society is going to hold your hand and "rehabilitate" you on a subject you know you won't change on. Granted that some murders happen 'in the moment', alot are justified in the minds of the wrong doers. A man kills his girlfriend and her secret lover due to infidelity. He may or may not regret that. His previous lifestyle isn't a good indication on which way he will sway. If he doesn't regret that, or find it wrong in any way, you can't possibly rehabilitate him. Giving him life imprisonment is a joke. He did the crime with the knowledge of what would happen. The things that take place in prison are highly situational to a cir!@#$%^&*stance or an area where the prison is located. I have known many people who have been in for long years now, and rape and other such nonsense isn't a daily thing. Does it happen? Sure. assault is the only one that really happens on a daily basis; And that's only if you run your mouth. I am sure inner city prisons are different. But not all of them are the same. Through all that incoherant mumbling, I am just trying to portray that the death penalty (Generally as is) should be largely situational. Not all murderers should fry, but not every single one of them should be able to live regret free either. You can !@#$%^&*ess them to no end, spend years understanding why someone would want to kill the person they love because she ended up being an infidel; but as you are doing that, 4 other people just commited the same crime, under the same motivation. When murder is a reactionary happenance from an act you can not control, what possible solution will you have? I agree that we need to strengthen and make larger our safety net, but that is a seperate topic entirely.

Still trying to find out why we call it Soccer and not Football >.>

Only major things I disagree with. Seen too many good people not recieve what they desearve and should otherwise be able to obtain. The other points of interest are debatable one way or another. I honestly believe in my heart that most premeditated crimes should get the harshest penalty. There will always be someone "sick" And there will always be those individuals who aren't. As we can't change the law on a case to case basis for the most part, there will be no consensus.

If I went out, killed 13 people and turned out to have no real mental problems (Statement is debatable) I would welcome life in solitude compared to that of death. To not be able to live at all would crush me, that is my deterrent. Being able to think logically on a higher level is one of a humans best defining features. As long as the mind is still able to work, you have taken nothing away. My view doesn't touch rehabilitation. That to me is another debatable topic entirely.

Bot takes our anti away most of the time. The areas that it doesn't (Which still effect center) you need to be directly up against a wall unmoved, which is difficult to survive by doing. So the lameness is tolerated to a point. Ball killing is legal save for center (Which has goals all around it) In a super zone like ourown, you need to be able to kill a base anchor. w/l Ratio's are near nonexistant. You need something of 500/0+ to even get noticed. Those that earn it fairly are generally hunted until loss or spec. As said, lameness encouraged... Players generally get theirs in the end by death and/or other means. I would barely consider a *spec to be justified punishment for any of those offenses. As others comment, you will see opinions based on the specific zone rules. Only the antiwarp would be considered universal laming.

No such thing. As already pointed out, it's an excuse others use. I have played T3g many years now, lameness is encouraged. SO WHO WANTS ICE IN THEIR LAMORADE?

I only meant it in the form of, some creationists actually believe that we will be altered to fit these slight changes. How that can be even remotely true, I haven't the slightest idea But yea.. When I am dead, I am dead. Selfish like that On a side note though, I am not AGAINST helping the environment, I do my part by not littering, carpooling and otherwise voting on issues I care about. I just won't go out of my way drastically to make changes.

Hmm.. Lack of working quotes on the posts is difficult to deal with. Somehow I got through reading it though When it comes down to it, I just don't see the environment collapsing so quickly. The earth will renew itself in time, and if it causes human extinction; so be it. Call me ignorant *shrug* This is one of those "It won't bloody happen in my lifetime" deals. It's sad we have the ability to kill ourselves, put since I honestly believe we are a product of pure evolution (Without the oversight of a creator) It's something that happens.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Moved, heh

There is always a line for acceptabilility. Someone has to make it.