Aileron

...so he dumped Tex and went back to the gay bar...

He tripped and fell on Tex...

The warn bar is a new feature the admins put up in SSforum...everyone has one. The little blue boxes are some kind of background thing...you are on 0% warn, just like everyone else. Time for a three legged race! *ties flamingstarch and cokey to each other* *counts legs* 1, 2, 3, .... 4? *cuts off one of flamingstarch's legs* *sews leg on to myself* Ready Set Go! *runs course and accrossed finish line* "woot! I won the three legged race! I am so 1337! Well, I don't need this anymore" *cuts off the leg that formally belonged to to flamingstarch* *smacks Manus on the head with severed leg*

Huh? Wrong topic Manus... *grabs chainsaw* *slices and dices*

You won't get any arguement about FFVIII from me... *reveals that I had re-raise cast on me before the topic started* *casts double on self* *casts Ultima x 2 on SNOo* *flamingstarch is hurt from the collateral damage even in the other topic*

*smashes SNOo's ressurection machine with hammer* *smashes SNOo's head in with hammer*

That's barely spam, LearJett+. Plz quit calling Spyed names. Spyed, I know you didn't really spam the topic, but plz post something relevant.

This topic is for random violence against other posters. Rules: 1) You get as many super powers as you want. 2) Don't attack anyone who hasn't posted in this topic 3) No attacks against the entire topic at once. For example, you can't: "*drops nuke on topic*" 4) Don't quit if you die; feel free to ressurect yourself or reappear mysteriously. 5) Have fun

I don't get my topics confused...I wasn't thinking about that religion topic at all actually.

Seriously though, you seem to have a natural instinct for the dark side...we should teach you to fly shark.

SeVeR playing the role of Darth Vader ofcourse: Kills Anaken Skywalker (Depending on your point of view ) Kills all the Jedi Takes over the galaxy Lasts six Episodes before dying. The only difference is that Vader didn't kill Yoda.

6) Could be fun, though not in the way he described it. Basically, one makes a map with a bunch of wormholes in a line at the bottom, and makes a "floor". Then, they make a shipset that looks like persons only from a side view. The effect is pretty interesting. This isn't a good zone idea though...I've seen it done before as an event, and it was fun as heck. But, I can't see it in the pub of any zone. Seriously though, there is no lack of good zone ideas...I have my own. The problem is that there is a lack of suitable bot programmers. Most of the existing zones can't fill their ranks, so its impossible to find one that is currently not doing anything.

Well, the War on Terror has to be a trigger...it is the only thing that is both relevent and recent to the group rioting. However, it is unimportant really. As I said...it is only the spark that set this whole thing off. "Sparks" happen all the time, and nobody can prevent them from occuring. What is important is the reaction to the "sparks". What I mean is that the War on Terror is related to whatever started this thing, but it was the environment in these areas that turned that trigger into a riot. What's more, if that trigger didn't set this off, then it would have only been a matter of time until something else did. Erm...I apologize, I appear to have been wrong with my statement over French education: Big boring website If you select the "France - EN" option, it links to a pdf file. At the end of the 4.f. section it reads: "On completion of their collège schooling, pupils are awarded a brevet (national certificate) on the basis of their marks in the final two years (fourth and third classes) and a national examination. The brevet is not a compulsory qualification and continuation of their schooling in a lycée is not dependent on their passing the examination." Basically they need to p!@#$%^&* a national exam to graduate collége. (US equivolent is high school). I thought I learned what I wrote earlier from a german foreign exchange student, but it seems my memory, the translation, or my interpretation of the information appears to have been wrong.

I guess when you put it that way, teenagers should be given access to additional financial and child support options. I don't know i88gerbils really meant..whether it was "teenagers should be given abortion access because they have less ability to raise a child" or "teenagers should be given abortion access because their friends will think less of them if they are pregnant in high school." I apologize. I !@#$%^&*umed that you meant the second one, which is a bit of a straw man agruement, because that viewpoint is clearly ridiculous. I guess what you meant by that was more along the lines of the first one. While I think that an abortion is too much here, I think that high school students should be given additional adoption, daycare, and welfare options.

hmmm.....actually that isn't all that different than what actually happened in the series.

How am I hating women? I thought I was being too rude to men here! For clarification, I do think a single mother and a single father are both equally capable of raising children. What I AM saying in the strong sense is that two parents are better than one, and in the weak sense that one parent does not have the time and energy to raise more than two children and teach each all the life lessons they need. Two parents on the other hand can handle much more, probably about eight...the two incomes can certainly get the monetary support in, and early on they definitely have the time to teach the elder children the life lessons they need, and the elders teach the youngers...all the parents have to do is mediate the fights that break out. My point, which I stated last time in too many words...the father should still be required to be around for the kids, and at very least should be paying child support. He shouldn't be able to divorce, say "Hunny, handle this from here." and ride off into the sunset never to be seen again. And what I meant by the social stigma attached to divorce: If a couple divorces, they made atleast on mistake. Either they gave up on a marriage over a disagreement they would have eventually worked out, or they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. They should be regarded as persons who made a mistake. Now, people who made a mistake shouldn't be relegated to a ghetto for certain. People make mistakes. I just figured out why we aren't thinking on the same page. I said: "There should be a social stigma attached to divorce" You think I said: "There should be a social stigma against persons who go through a divorce." You are right in that all ghettos should be eliminated. I know a problem in the US is that a lot of times the NAACP confuses ghetto culture with african-american culture. The latter should be supported, but ghetto culture should be eliminated because it only serves to divide our country. Maybe in this case France confused muslim culture with ghetto culture as well. However, while the barriers that ghettos set up cause many negative things, they don't cause riots. Ghettos usually cause a steady stream of violence in the form of high crime rates. The ghetto system is probably increasing the length and scale of violence, but is probably not the root cause. Maybe the root cause is related to terrorism. Maybe since most terrorists are muslim, and that the French government hasn't made any official recognition of this fact, that non-muslims are taking matters into their own hands. For example, since French immigration agents aren't allowed to double-check a muslim's travel visa, that the local cafe owner is taking matters into his own hands by not hiring muslims. However, this is a stretch and I doubt this. Or maybe its related to the war on terrorism another way, in that the French media kept portraying legitimate democratic governments and Islamic terrorist organizations as moral equals. Then, a bunch of people come to believe this, decide that they want to fight their own little Jihad. I doubt this too. {Another possibility I can think of is the French public school system. They use testing to fail students from school once after elementary school and once after high school. (FYI, that's why US public schools aren't testing as well as foreign schools...we teach (and therefore test) everybody, wheras France, Germany, and Japan are only dealing with their best students.) If you consider immigrants who during their younger years had a weak grasp of the native language, got tested out of elementary school because they couldn't understand the lessons taught in French, and years later come to the realisation that they will live the rest of their lives as lower class citizens because they could not grasp certain concepts when they were about 10 yrs hold and couldn't speak and understand French well at that time. Now THAT is something I would riot over! Still, this can't be the reason either...if it was, rioting would have occurred years ago.} -Upon detailed investigation, this information appears to be innaccurate. I apologize. Overall, I simply think its a group of people who came to the conclusion that government is all-powerfull and can make life easy, and then found out that life is tough. For example I will use the point of finding a job. It is NEVER easy finding a job. Its a long, aggrivating, and tedious process no matter what. And this group, thinking that the government or atleast some economic changes can somehow make this process easy, blamed the government for the fact that its an annoying process. In general, they lived in a culture where the first thing people do when they encounter a problem is blame the government for it. In this case the problems that are besetting these people are mostly facts of life that no one has, no should have, the power to change. However, instead of looking at themselves for not adapting to the world, they blame the government for not adapting the world to them. Overall, Islamic Terrorism was the spark, the ghetto was the hot dry environment, but it was the fact that in French culture its customary to blame the government for all problems is which was the powderkeg.

The legal status of abortion is undebatable. The legal status of abortion is defined by the sum of legal statutes affecting the region and time it takes place. It is the moral status we are arguing about. Why would it be different for high school students? True, there is a social stigma attached to being pregnant in high school, but somebody's high school social life amounts to very little. It at most 4 years, everybody is out of there and for the most part will never !@#$%^&*ociate with their classmates again.

*takes Harry Potter DVD out of player* *throws Harry Potter DVD in air and shoots it midflight* *Puts Star Wars Episode I DVD in player and presses play* *Watches Episode I* *Takes out Episode I DVD and puts in Episode II DVD* *Watches Episode II* *Takes out Episode II DVD and puts in Episode III DVD* *Watches Episode III* *Takes out Episode III DVD and puts in Episode IV DVD* *Watches Episode IV* *Takes out Episode IV DVD and puts in Episode V DVD* *Watches Episode V* *Takes out Episode V DVD and puts in Episode VI DVD* *Watches Episode VI* *falls asleep just as the group is captured by the Ewoks.* *wakes up as credits are rolling* "Ah man! I missed it! We have to watch the series again!" *puts in Episode I DVD*....

I will use your fourth point to counter your third...Yes, there are many countries that encourage too much dissident behavior, that's why anti-government riots isn't unique to France. I mean, don't get me wrong...sometimes dissidency and protests are necessary to get the wheels of change moving. However, when you have people criticising government left and right and rioting against government, when all in all they are doing a pretty good job, then dissidency is a problem. The biggest problem with this is it causes the "boy who cried wolf" effect. If someone is always saying government is crooked when it isn't, no one will believe him when the government is. Anger does not need a reason. Its an emotion, and by definition does not need to be logical. Its possible to work yourself into a rage over absolutely nothing, or to imagine a scenario and get angry over that. I don't think these rioters are angry over any situation they might be in...I think that in this case they might have up and decided to work themselves into a rage. I mean, their situation is pretty good in a worldwide perspective. About the social stigma...I said it should only be attached to divorce, which is a decision. There certainly should NOT be any social stigma attached to race, immigrancy economically, or the like. (Moving to a country may be a decision, but you wouldn't have to make that decision if by fate you were born there to begin with.) Divorce on the other hand is completely different...especially in France, where in most cases custody is given exclusively to the mother. Then, the family has one overwhelmed parent running around, juggling a job and taking care of the children. She does not have the time to do anything more than feed, clothe, and shelter the children until they are adults. This leaves the children lacking a lot of wisdom and lessons about life that is usually passed down from generation to generation. I'm not saying divorce couples should be shunned or anything like that, but I am saying that society should regard it as a desperate last resort rather than a common solution. 50% of marriages end in divorce...that number is too high. If there is any social stigma attached to any of the other things you mentioned, they have to go. However, I doubt they exist (except educational-wise - I hate the way France runs their schools.). The point is, there is very little social and racial injustice here, and riots are still going on - there must be some other reason. (I could be entirely wrong, and these could be a group of people who were tested out of public school at a young age and feel bitter about it.) I never said it would be easy for a immigrant to find a job. Its tough to find a job when you aren't an immigrant, and tougher to find one when you are. All I am saying is that they jobs are there, and the employers are in the most part not racist enough to put "muslims need not apply" signs up. A job matching service might be a good government program here, but there are no great economic or social improvements that can be done...France is already wealthy and enlighted.

erm....I kinda thought the three cops were npcs...sorry.

Wow...its been going on for two weeks now. I don't think France's government or police force are the cause of this. Okay, I do blame them, but not in the usual way. The supposed reason for these riots is as a backlash to racism and poverty. I think that opinion is wrong. France is a very socialist country. They have tons of social programs with the aim of the goal of helping the poor. They have a national health care system and a top-ranked educational system. Their problems with their social programs is not too few, its too many. They have created a subsection of their society that has become a welfare state. If I recall, a rough estimate of unemployment is about 30% among the group rioting. France is a first world country surrounded by other first world countries. There is no way in heck that the jobs aren't there. France is also a pretty enlightened country. There is no way in heck that there is enough racism to prevent these people from getting jobs. Also, these riots were spurred on by two people, who thinking the police were after them, decided to hide in a power station and ended up getting electrocuted. These two should be given a Darwin Award - their deaths should be laughed at rather than pitied. There shouldn't be spoken a word ill spoken of the French police here...they weren't even chasing the two men. There is no doubt that the installation was covered with warning signs. These two decided to risk their lives to get away from some imaginary police officers. No matter what crimes they might have commited, its a bad gamble...France doesn't allow executions. Whatever the imaginary police were going to charge them with, it wouldn't be worth dying to avoid getting arrested. Basically, the mistakes France made to cause these riots are as follows: 1 - They encouraged too much anti-government free speech. It is true dictatorships have a habit of quiteing dissidents, and that no government should have the right to shut somebody up for their opinion. However, society shouldn't support dissidents every single time they open their mouths. The vast majority of the time a dissident is merely a moron with nothing better to do. There shouldn't be any law to limit such speach other than basic libel and defamation laws. However, these laws should be enforced. Also, these people should not be receiving psychological support by college campuses bending over backwards to schedule them speaking time. The problem with listening to dissidents too much is that is causes society to be paranoid about all authority. People begin to think governments and businesses are out to get them, even when the government might just merely want to help and the company might only want to do honest business. Take this instance. There were too people so paranoid about police that they for all practical purposes committed suicide. Also, there are so many people paranoid about companies that they are convinced that they can't find a job. 2 - They encouraged too many free-family styles Like free speech, government really doesn't have a right to interfere here, and tell people they need to have a father/mother/children/dog/white picket fence style family. However, this style has historically proven to be the best. Couples should be encouraged to work their problems out, rather than make it easy for a quickie divorce. There should indeed be a social stigma attached to divorce. The results is that we have a large population here who lived under single parent familys. Such models are not strong enough to give children a good sense of disipline, a requirement for self discipline. Without self discipline, a person might react violently to even the smallest spark of anger, such as in this case where we got a lot of them rioting over pretty much nothing. 3 - They tied their policeman's hands too much In criminal rights, you are legally considered innocent until proven guilty. However, in real life, there are career criminals. Police officers should have to treat career criminals as career criminals. The fact that they can't make distinctions between career criminals and ordinary persons, has led to the belief that there are no distinctions between criminals and ordinary persons. This gives criminals notions that they have just as many moral rights as everyone else, and they constantly have a false feeling of oppression every time a police officer has to do their job by putting the criminal in jail where he belongs. It gives ordinary citizens notions that the police officers think they are criminals, because the police aren't treating them differently than criminals. There are limits to how far certain things should go. This is a case of civil rights going too far. Before I was born, the civil rights movement was a great awakening of concious. Now the movement has been corrupted, to the point that people think they can do whatever, attack whatever, destroy whatever, without legal or moral consequence. As what is almost always the case, balance is what is needed here, and France needs a stronger government and stronger society to reenstate the balance.

But actually its the men that benefit more out of abortion than women. If a man gets a woman pregnant, and he is just a deadbeat that wants to get out of there, all he has to do is persuade/bully her into getting an abortion. Then he rides off into the sunset while she feels a life time of guilt over the event. Fetuses not having rights would be a circular arguement. I say that while they may not necessarily be a person, they have as much right to life as a person, because they have as much to lose as a person if they lose their life. They may not be persons per se, but they have some of the same rights as persons.

*hides gun* *runs to police officers* Aileron>Officers! There's a crazy man running around with a wand and pink dress on! *pulls out some photographs of Tex, taken off the store security camera* Partner1,2,3: Wil get rights on dat Crazy G!

We can use anything we like to help explain our world view. We aren't debating facts, we are debating ethics. Sure, you can explain your opinion that way, but it won't prove anything. Your opponant will simply disagree with you on the first issue. Astro, a patient without any brain functions is dead. Persons in comas might have no VISIBLE brain functions, in which case the idea of not pulling the plug is dependant upon our uncertainty over the patient's condition - the patient might have brain functions we can't detect. ........I'm at a shock over your second arguement. You can't execute people for crimes they might or might not commit in the future! Even if you could predict the future completely accurately, it would still be a bad policy. Your third arguement uses a bad comparison. Either Iraq was about oil and was an immoral war, or it was about something more than oil and was a moral war. Neither case contradicts my statement, which I will rewrite formally now for clarification: "A war is moral only if it is advancing a great cause." And no, the right to this particular choice is not a great enough cause...each instance involves the death of an individual, which includes a lifetime of choices. One person's right to the 10,000 or so decisions they would make over their life time overrules another person's right to one decision.

*reattaches left arm* *goes in to the back room of the store* *comes out with a working model of one of the guns from Trigun* (If creatix' rules still apply I swaped it out for my slingshot) *points the gun towards Tex* *blasts the house, the sign, the telescope, and leaves a nasty crater in the moon* *Tex is sucked into the void of space*