Reveilled

I see nothing wrong with the changing of English according to how it is used by the people who speak it. I don't see the people complaining about these changes refusing to use Modern English in favour of Old English. " In fact, when you examine some newer forms of English, such as complex leet, you find that in many ways it is more complex than standard English. Some words die out, new ones are created. A century from now the English language will probably be as complex as ever, even if "you" is spelled "U", and "are" as "r". Besides, when you consider that the personal pronoun is written as "I", doesn't "U" seem a more logical spelling?

Scoring - Boa Boa did the theme tune to Serial Experiments Lain (an awesome anime), and are also the band of Steve Rogers of Bad Company fame's children. They are, incidentally, millions of times better than Bad Company, who suck.

The only Hentai game I ever played was called X-Change.

I've never been quite sure what the hell a morning star is. My father used to describe it as a sort of small flail with two heads. I've seen it drawn as a miniature flail with a single head. I've seen it shown as a mace with a circular spiked head, and also as a mace with a cylindrical spiked head. Which is all very confusing. Anyone know what they actually are?

My Grandad is a Harry Potter fan.

Nope.

... So if you were Denis Quaid you would have joined the oppressive Martian junta and kill your girlfriend and Kwato etc? Just curious ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The only way I could have understood that less was if it was written in Chinese. Could you maybe try an analogy with figures I've heard of?

That's hardly an indication of any single issue, especially abolishing tax! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps. I think the kind of low-tax, low-welfare society that Reveilled describes probably can exist and be successful, if you judge it in its own terms. I just don't want to live there. Although I argue against it, I'm doing so according to my own criteria of the kind of society I want to live in, and ultimately there's unlikely to be fundamental agreement between us. So the only way to resolve the issue is through the democratic process. There is a danger of assuming a general election victory means endorsement of a particular policy, but this danger is greater with side issues, such as the hunting ban, than key issues such as tax and the economy. In the end, I suppose the government has to proceed as if it did have a mandate, even if it doesn't really. Otherwise you have chaos and confusion. In our last election, there wasn't a political party putting forward Reveilled's vision of society. Maybe someone should start one, and test the country's opinion on this issue. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can tell you right now they'd probably get three or four votes tops. I accept that the society we have is roughly the society most people in Britain want, and that I'm never going to be able change it. That's fair enough for the British people. Instead, I'm moving to New Hampshire with the Free State Project, and we're going to create for ourselves the society we want. We'll see how it goes. In an attempt to be as open and tolerant as possible, I'm just going to smile and say "to each their own."

I think that in Revan's shoes, I'd have preferred death. They wiped away the old personality and put a new one in on top of it. To me, that's like killing someone and then creating a new person out of all the dead person's bits. More like murder and theft, you could say. If they put in a personality as close as possible to the original Revan that might not be so bad.

I think you're all drawing far too much of a distinction between atheist fanatics and theist fanatics. A Communist might throw religious figures in jail because such people pose a threat to the authority of their philosophy. At the same time, said Communist might throw an Objectivist (another strongly Atheistic philosophy) in jail for the very same reason. A Fundamentalist Muslim might advocate the execution of all Atheists, because such people do not accept his beliefs. At the same time, said Muslim might do the same to a fundamentalist Christian. The fanatics in either case aren't doing such things along a black and white atheist-theist distinction. It's them vs. everyone else. It's not being Atheistic or Theistic that matters. What matters is the fanatacism. Whether the particular brand of fanatacism posits belief in God or not is six of one, half a dozen of the other. You should stop drawing the distinction between theists and atheists and saying that one is naturally prone to worse fanatacism. You should instead draw the distinction between fanatics of any colour and everyone else be they theist or atheist.

Voluntary donations wouldn't make up for it entirely, but they don't have to. As a result of abolishing these things, people themselves would have more money to pay for them when they need them, and the people who live off the system would no longer be a drain on it, lowering the amount needed to sustain it. As to the rich not donating sufficiently, ultimately that's their choice. But nowadays, most rich people are heads of companies, not wealthy landlords, so if you want them to donate more to charity, organise a boycott of their product until they do. If it matters enough to everyone, it'll happen. In any case, the rich have no obligation to give up more money simply because they have it. If they got it fair and square, it's their choice what to do with it.

Is it? First of all, you have to assume that the rich are so generous that they will give No, everyone can afford to be charitous, and my beliefs demand that I be...recieving kindness form some one is so much more meaningful than getting a government food stamp in the mail... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure most people can afford it, but relying on private charity assumes people are. People are selfish. People are greedy. Relying on the selfless nature of human beings to help the poor and less fortunate won't achieve anything. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's just not true. People are generous. If people are so greedy, why do charities exist? If people are so greedy, why does almost every philosophy and religion in human history stress selflessness? If people are so greedy, why do people vote in governments with huge social welfare budgets? If people were so greedy, no one would donate to charity. If people were greedy, they would all follow beliefs that stressed keeping everything you have and relentlessly trying to get more. If people were so greedy, the only people who would vote for things such as social security would be the parasites who intend to live off of it. I'm one of the most selfish people you'd ever meet, but I donate to charity. I've even done volunteer work. I plan on spending a year in Africa after I finish my degree. You know why? Because knowing that I helped someone makes me happy. Being generous to others gives me fufillment, and so by being geneours I have fufilled my selfish desire for happiness. I really don't understand where everyone gets this belief that humans are greedy. It's pessimistic and depressing, and gives humanity far too little credit.

The purpose of a society is to protect the freedoms of the society's participants. To this end, the government should provide emergency services, such as police, a military, and possibly roads. Anything else is something that must only be participated in on a voluntary basis. It is not purely a matter of "every man for himself", because people derive happiness from helping others often as much as from helping themselves. Private charity can provide many of the things that government provides, and it can provide it without taking money off of people without their consent and threatening them with imprisonment if they don't pay. Societies existed before socialised medicine, they existed before social security, and they existed before drug prohibition, and given the dictionary definition, I don't see how any system of governemnt from anarchism to Libertarianism to Fascism wouldn't be going along with "A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture."

They should have been planning for that possibility. If I become unemployed, that is not the fault of some random person down the street, so why should said person have to give me money? How? Are the addicts commiting other crimes? Then they should be locked up for those crimes. But if you could buy bottles of morphine at the chemists for

How God did it? Sorry but religion anwer was that God did the unknown, we did not know how life come to exist and so religion anwer was that God did it. I'm religious. I'm giving you an answer based on my religious beliefs. Therefore, the answer I gave you is one possible religious answer. If the Supreme Being meant for us to sit around and say "God did it" without looking that the hows and whys, she wouldn't have given us such large brains and inquisitive minds. To do anything less than pursue the answers to those questions relentlessly is to defy that apparent purpose. Especially when there is as many religions as there are people, insisting that all religions and religious people have only one answer is frankly silly. My faith has nothing to do with death. In fact, my religion is almost entirely silent on the afterlife. I don't need faith for death, I'm enjoying my life on Earth. God would allow mass extinctions. Some people would say God wouldn't, but said people do not speak for all religious people, or even for all Christians. You are generalising to completely pointless extents, and are slandering a great many religious people.

No, no it doesn't. The individual has a responsibility to make sure they don't go without food or shelter. If they fail, then no one should be forced to give them money. No it wouldn't, it would be saying "It's your body, but don't come crying to us if you get yourself killed on them." People's health is their own responsibility. If you don't take care of yourself (as opposed to being unable to take care of yourself), then that's your problem. In my not-so-humble opinion, anyway.

That's an awful generalisation. You'll find plenty of religious people who when they come across something they don't know, go and find out how God did it. So many of our greatest scientists were religious, how can you possibly say such a thing? You are seeing a conflict where there is none at all, much like religious fundamentalists do.

Good Thing. Good thing. Good Thing. Bad Thing. Bad Thing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bad thing, but none of the Government's business.

Google just put up the Beta version of Google Groups 2 on all of their regional websites. There is now no way to access the version of Google Groups that isn't COMPLETELY FARKING AWFUL. UGH! I hate Google Groups beta. It wasn't broke, why on earth would they attempt to fix it?

I can sing Tom Lehrer's Element Song without a lyric sheet. This is either very impressive or very sad. Most probably the latter.

Weird Al - eBay (Parody of "I want it that way") On repeat 1, and I'm singing along very loudly and emotionally. :D

Even in the winter? :ph34r: Even in winter. Even in blowing wind. Yeah but my duties are also to help everyone and Rangers can change <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, but if you become a ranger, you'll have to multiclass, thus losing the ability to gain any more levels in Paladin.

That depends on whether or not you're a true Scotsman or not. The only thing under a true Scotsman's kilt is his socks and shoes. :ph34r: Bluenoses are evil, Baley. Your duties as a paladin require you to support Celtic.

Kilts are strictly weddings, dances, and christenings only. And porridge adverts, as Darth said.

They're kilt-wearing cannibals with three heads made entirely out of an element known as Evilium. Seriously. :ph34r: