Search
Search results: 11,180 found, showing up to 50
I agree with this soooo much. But there is an exception - as seen in London. Even in London, I do more or less agree with this.Jay wrote:
Gentrification sucks only to those that fetishize being poor.
Foreign Billionaires buying everything and driving the prices through the roof. It's a big deal over here and house price rises are insane here. Foreign investors buy a huge proportion of every prestigious new development and the global scale of the demand does cause problems.
I bought my two bedroom flat about 3 years ago for £250000 - it's now valued at over £400000. That is crazy - but works out as quite a nice investment for me.
I have it.
Is good.
Needs more work.
Is good.
Needs more work.
And now Paris are trying to sue Fox News for exactly the same thing (saying huge areas of Paris are no go areas for non-muslims - areas including Montmatre, a major tourist hotspot).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30918379
Interesting concept, a city suing a TV channel....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30918379
Interesting concept, a city suing a TV channel....
An American terrorism commentator has apologised for describing Birmingham as a "Muslim-only city" where non-Muslims "don't go" during a Fox News interview
This "expert" is a chump.
It is sad that such utter morons are in demand to go on the news as "experts", purely because they spout the rhetoric that the news program wishes to push on the public as fact.
He is now making a charitable donation to the "beautiful" (his words - I think it's a shithole) city of Birmingham.
This "expert" is a chump.
It is sad that such utter morons are in demand to go on the news as "experts", purely because they spout the rhetoric that the news program wishes to push on the public as fact.
He is now making a charitable donation to the "beautiful" (his words - I think it's a shithole) city of Birmingham.
Indeed.SuperJail Warden wrote:
That image has been on news stands all over the world every other week.
A cute little picture from the onion is very different than a magazine continually publishing possible hate material.
But as others have said, and you have ignored (and denied), they lampoon Christianity in exactly the same way.
The content published by the magazine is not the issue here.
I finally got a chance to play this...
And it really sucks compared to Elite Dangerous (which goes into gamma tomorrow - woohoo). Hope they sort it out, I want loads of space games!!!
And it really sucks compared to Elite Dangerous (which goes into gamma tomorrow - woohoo). Hope they sort it out, I want loads of space games!!!
Nigeria have eliminated Ebola in the country...
Is the Nigerian healthcare system that much better than the American one?
If not, then why the hysteria?
Is the Nigerian healthcare system that much better than the American one?
If not, then why the hysteria?
Bullshit. I am vaccinated against Yellow Fever. I have a little booklet from the doctor to prove it.SuperJail Warden wrote:
There aren't any vaccines for Malaria, yellow fever, Chikungunya, and west Nile.
You can't deny there is a strong fascist movement amongst the supporters, if not the leadership itself, of the ruling Euromaiden movement in Ukraine.coke wrote:
Where is your proof.
Calling them Nazis is a stretch, but there is a very large, very unpleasant fascist element in Ukraine.
Of course that hasn't had wide media coverage in the West. Although it certainly does not condone the way Russia has behaved over Crimea and the support they are clearly providing to the rebels. It's comparable to Iran arming Hamas. No one comes out looking good from this Ukraine situation. Not the West, not Russia and certainly not Ukraine.
I don't get it?SuperJail Warden wrote:
Iraq wouldn't have been invaded by ISIS if the French and British parliaments had authorized airstrikes along with the U.S. after Assad used chemical weapons.
Are you saying it would be better if the West had helped ISIS overthrow Assad and take control of Syria?
Many of the Syrian rebels, the ones the Russians thought it far too dangerous to arm or assist, are the crazy psychos who formed ISIS.
I don't think that's accurate. They are former allies of Al Qaeda.Cybargs wrote:
You do realize ISIS is also an offshoot of Al Qaeda Iraq right?SuperJail Warden wrote:
Iraq wouldn't have been invaded by ISIS if the French and British parliaments had authorized airstrikes along with the U.S. after Assad used chemical weapons.
These things happen in subtle ways, typically through socially media. I doubt you would be aware of this stuff - much as I am unaware of the ISIS recruiting for Jihad in London - because you are not the sort of psycho they are looking for.Shahter wrote:
ah, drives. my bad.
well, anyway, i just checked - none of that is actually happening: no fliers, no phone numbers, no offices, no e-mail addresses, nothing. there are groups in social media for those, who would volunteer to fight for separatists in ukraine - bloody psychos if you ask me - but that hardly passes for "recruitment drives".
so, any more "evidence"?
I have a very split mindset when it comes to the situation in Ukraine. There is clearly some Russian involvement which goes beyond what can reasonably be justified as humanitarian - but the Ukrainians are no saints. Ukrainians, despite their pro-Europe bias, seem to widely hold some very backward beliefs. Their government (or at least large parts of it) is made up of softened, westernised, fascists spreading their special brand of fascism lite which is just soft enough not to offend their Western allies they are so eager to ingratiate themselves with. I don't agree with the political ideologies in Ukraine, but I don't agree with what Russia are doing there either.
But hey - not relevant to the Middle East.
No there wasn't. That had been suppressed entirely by Saddam by the middle of 1999.SuperJail Warden wrote:
There was violence in Iraq prior to the invasion. There was still fighting and unrest stemming from the 1999 Shia uprising.
No. Life was shit over there. But there wasn't terrorism. They are two different things. In this instance, I believe a brutal regime is less threat to the outside world than a terror network. Both are pretty rubbish if you live there.pirana6 wrote:
Yep. Life was great over there. Hunky fuckin doryBertster7 wrote:
Prior to the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003 there was no terrorism in Iraq (as has been demonstrated all over the place, I'm not providing sources as this is common knowledge)
Very fair points. However, who is more of a threat to the West, Saddam's regime or IS?DesertFox- wrote:
No, but then again it would still be Saddam's brutal regime. If indeed the IS does manage to solidify themselves as the de facto ruler of the country, it's just another repressive government, though probably with a bit less violence than we're seeing now once they've consolidated their power. It does not help that 10 years of nation (re)building by the US could be undone in a manner of months, though.Bertster7 wrote:
Would Islamic terrorism have been able to establish a foothold in Iraq under Saddam's brutal regime?
Western assessment of the situation in the Middle East has been shockingly poor. It's not long ago the US/UK were considering arming IS (before they had that name) in Syria.
Many years ago, when this forum was young and BF2 was a contemporary game, many contributors to this forum made all sorts of audacious claims about the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.
Prior to the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003 there was no terrorism in Iraq (as has been demonstrated all over the place, I'm not providing sources as this is common knowledge) but since the invasion, Al Qaeda and Islamic State activity has been at record levels with whole towns of innocent civilians being rounded up and shot or crucified and women and children being sold into slavery.
At the time, many claimed that removing Saddam from power would reduce levels of Islamic terrorism in Iraq.
Life under Saddam was harsh, there can be no denying that. Was life under Saddam as bad as life on the run from IS militants taking control of the country?
Would Islamic terrorism have been able to establish a foothold in Iraq under Saddam's brutal regime?
Prior to the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003 there was no terrorism in Iraq (as has been demonstrated all over the place, I'm not providing sources as this is common knowledge) but since the invasion, Al Qaeda and Islamic State activity has been at record levels with whole towns of innocent civilians being rounded up and shot or crucified and women and children being sold into slavery.
At the time, many claimed that removing Saddam from power would reduce levels of Islamic terrorism in Iraq.
Life under Saddam was harsh, there can be no denying that. Was life under Saddam as bad as life on the run from IS militants taking control of the country?
Would Islamic terrorism have been able to establish a foothold in Iraq under Saddam's brutal regime?
You don't have student unions in the US?
Where do you get cheap booze if not from the student union bar?
Where do you get cheap booze if not from the student union bar?
Patched a security hole in their security framework used across OS 10.9 and iOS 6 and 7. Essentially, checking that a certificate is genuine has not worked properly from September 2012 to Feb 2014. Nice work Apple.
I suppose you speak from a position of authority. The Russians are the experts on propaganda after all.Shahter wrote:
that's a nice set of anti-russia propaganda bullshit you assembled there. gj, i really enjoyed reading that.
So far the way the Russians have dealt with the Ukrainian situation is such classic and obvious propaganda that it is laughable.
From taking over Ukrainian TV stations with armed troops and installing Russian broadcasters in their place, using actors playing roles in multiple news reports pretending to be Ukrainians - the same actors in different regions claiming to be different people, more using actors as witnesses to the events in the Crimean parliament, not allowing international observers into Crimea and having Russia TV presenters resigning live on air because they disagreed with the propaganda they were being asked to feed to the public.
The list goes on and on and on.
Keep on claiming that we are all idiots believing our Western propaganda if you like. We'll all continue laughing at your naivety.
Guess who is the only nation to have invoked article 5 of the treaty (the bit asking for immediate aid from other members following an attack)?SuperJail Warden wrote:
Ukraine has totally asked for U.S. aid.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Nobody is begging for USA aid.
USA will get their nose stuck in because you always do, especially if there is a chance the evil Russians are involved.
USA does not want a war with Russia, nobody does.
Would be very interested to know China's role in this, they are getting to the point where a few proxy wars would be good to test our their newly developed tech. From what I know it is mostly Russian derived so there must be a relationship there..Dont think China will want be seen as an aggressor yet but would be very surprised if they are ignoring the conflict.http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us … -1.1709723Ukraine has asked Nato to look at all possible ways to help it protect its territorial integrity, foreign minister Sergei Deshchiritsya said today.
The minister said he had held talks with officials from the United States and the European Union and then asked Nato for help after what Ukraine’s prime minister described as Russian aggression.
A request had been made to Nato to “look at using all possibilities for protecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people and nuclear facilities on Ukrainian territory,” he said.
Guess who makes up the overwhelming majority of NATO forces? Guess who also spends the most money and has the most experienced soldiers?
You don't need troops for economic sanctions - which are what would make the most sense here.
Your anti-gun movement.Extra Medium wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2013/10/20/is-the-obama-administration-the-cause-of-gun-ammunition-shortages/3/
Interesting article. Really goes to show just how counter productive the entire anti-gun movement has been lately.
Bad thing happens.
People scream for guns to go away so bad things don't happen.
Legislators take notice because less guns equals less bad things.
Gun owners get scared, go and by more guns.
People who think they MAY want to own a gun, go and buy a gun.
Those people all need ammo for new guns.
Ammo starts going through a shortage.
People start buying EVEN more ammo, in case we run out of ammo.
Ammo starts an even bigger shortage.
The Fed starts buying more bullets in case of a shortage.
Conspiracy theorists claim government is buying up all the bullets and CAUSING a shortage. "Inevitable government police state coming"
People panic, get over patriotic, decide to buy more guns.
At the end of the day, the greatest salesmen for the gun industry were the anti gun advocates.
In other countries it goes like this:
Bad thing happens
Government ban guns
Fewer bad things happen
I would say they scenario you've detailed is caused by pro-gun lobbying which prevents banning them, not by the anti-gun lobby who want to ban the guns. If there was no one standing in the way of them being banned it wouldn't pan out like that at all.
None of the responses you made were in any way relevant.Shahter wrote:
i already answered all of this. i already explained that not everybody who wants to be treated like everybody else should be. i already explained the difference between hetero- and homosexuality. i already explained why promoting the latter could be detrimental to the society and the state. i did all that already and you provided no counter-arguments whatsoever.Bertster7 wrote:
blah blah blah intolerance
blah blah blah bigotry
so, like, go do something else. this "debate" is going nowhere.
You have provided no more than the age old arguments against gay marriage. In that scenario those arguments would have some bearing on the discussion - but they are meaningless when it comes to this law.
Yes, you have made points about why society at large may not benefit from promotion of homosexual relationships. That is in no way relevant to the fairness of the law or as to whether the supporters of this law are bigots. I'm sure I could make a fairly solid economic argument for slavery - that doesn't mean supporting it is in any way good or right.
Give me something to provide counter arguments to and I will.
I'm also interested in your take on the contextual association between homosexuality and paedophilia - I would assume you write this off as pure coincidence and will assert that this law does nothing to link the two?
Cybargs wrote:
no shahter you explain that shit. because if we find an english translation youre gonna harp on about western bias/propaganda and misinterpretation of the law, so we want to know what strictly is defined as "gay propaganda"
There you go.Article 1
To introduce into the Law of St. Petersburg on March 12, 2012, No. 273-70 "On administrative offenses in St. Petersburg" the following changes:
1. Add Articles 7_1 and 7_2 reading as follows:
Article 7_1. Public actions aimed at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism amongst minors
Public actions aimed at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism amongst minors incur an administrative fine for citizens in the amount of five thousand rubles; for officials -- fifty thousand rubles; for legal entities -- from two thousand fifty to five hundred thousand rubles.
Note. As public actions at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism amongst minors in this article should be understood activities on purposeful and uncontrolled dissemination of information in a publicly accessible way that can be harmful to the health, moral and spiritual development of minors, including forming in their mind a distorted perception of social equality of traditional and nontraditional marital relationships.
Article 7_2. Public actions aimed at propaganda of pedophilia
Public actions aimed propaganda of pedophilia amongst minors incur an administrative fine for citizens in the amount of five thousand rubles; for officials -- fifty thousand rubles; for legal entities -- from five hundred thousand to one million rubles.
Note: As public actions aimed at propaganda of pedophilia amongst minors in this article should be understood activities on purposeful and uncontrolled dissemination of information in a publicly accessible way aimed at forming in the society a distorted perception of the consistency with the social norms of intimate relationships between adults and minors.
Giving kids the impression homosexual relationships should be equal with heterosexual ones is classed as propaganda and therefore illegal.
Quite disturbing and backwards seeing the inferred link in the law between homosexuality and molesting children too.forming in their mind a distorted perception of social equality of traditional and nontraditional marital relationships
Intolerance based on sexual orientation.Shahter wrote:
his point is not valid. let's see:i don't fear, distrust, hate, view with contempt, or have problems tolerating homosexuality. russian government doesn't either. a lot of people in russia do though, and, as i said earlier, we will deal with them.Wikipedia wrote:
Bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
there you go.
more?
Intolerance of them promoting their lifestyle (not even promoting, seeking equality - which is not quite the same). That is what the law is.
If you would have no problem with someone promoting heterosexual family life but have a problem with gays promoting homosexual partnerships and families, then that is a bigoted position - the reason for that is that you are perfectly happy to tolerate this behaviour from heterosexuals, yet not from homosexuals. That is intolerance based on sexual orientation. That is bigoted. You are a bigot - by the definition you provided.
It's not that impossible.pirana6 wrote:
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, what I'm saying is, it's basically impossible to say who started it.Dilbert_X wrote:
So when did the Palestinians start any of it?
They're the victims, not the invaders or the aggressors.
For example, (in heavily condensed terms) Israel was created that forced palestinians out. They got mad and fought back. Blame jews in this case? It was the general assembly (if i remember correctly) that decided to partition the area.
Jewish immigration to the area in the early 20th century caused it.
Before then you needed to go back more than a millennia so I think we can discount the arguments from the Roman era as being historic (as well as being highly disputed by mainstream modern historians, particularly the stuff about the Syria Palestinia name change - a name referred to in the 5th century BC as describing the region, which the Romans assigned to Judea 6 or 7 centuries later, allegedly to convince Jews to leave), whereas things within the past couple of centuries are relevant in a modern context.
It was nothing to do with Israel being created and that forcing the Palestinians out. Israel was created by terror squads forcing the Palestinians out or massacring them (Deir Yassin for example), this was later legitimised by the general assembly. It's not the same thing at all.
It is one thing to be given a country it is another to turn up in someone else's country and to deprive them of their livelihoods, have militia groups murder them (Hagganah) and terror groups (Irgun and Lehi) conduct bombing campaigns against them until you can seize control and force them out - then to have these actions legitimised by the UN because everyone felt sorry for them in the wake of WWII.
No. There is no argument here. You have stated plain up that you are a bigot and that this is government policy in Russia.Shahter wrote:
that's because they clearly have no argument here.Extra Medium wrote:
Never have I seen a group of people sling the word bigot/bigotry around like you guys do.Stubbee wrote:
Never seen someone try so hard to rationalize bigotry.
EDIT in this forum
Don't agree with my point of view? That would be because YOU'RE A BIGOT.
Not recognising equality for gays. That is the political stance of a bigot. It could be a textbook definition.Shahter wrote:
i said it multiple times, we are not recognizing equality in this and posted plenty of reasons why. we will treat homosexuals like the impaired people they are placing appropriate restrictions on them, the same way we do with, for example, color blind. we are not interested in what you think about it because you are unable to provide any reasoning. fuck off already.
It's like saying black people are inferior and therefore should be subject to different rules.
You are all entitled to your opinions, but don't cry about it when those opinions are recognised as being bigoted.
Shahter wrote:
i hear ya, bro. start treating those "backward, ignorant, discriminatory, prejudiced cunts" like we do - by forbidding them to promote homosexuality among the minors, for example - and maybe we'll find some common ground in this after all.
there are people who were born color blind - they are not allowed to drive in russia. there are people with flat feet - they are not allowed to enter army or police in russia. there are gays - they are not allowed to promote their homosexuality among minors in russia. there are all kind of conditions in humans that get them treated differently from other people, and, personally, i have no problem with shutting down those who would make a public spectacle of that.
Here you are stating, very clearly, exactly what I said earlier and have consistently been saying throughout.not many. but, given the fact that homosexuality if not strictly genetic and has been shown to have phychological and social aspects to it, some may.
You agree that it is discriminating against gays. Then go on to justify this - which would be fine, were there any legitimate basis for it, aside from your 'it might turn children gay' paranoia, the sort of homophobic paranoia that often goes hand in hand with repressed homosexual urges.
It is far more likely to further demonise homosexuality in Russia - which I believe is the true purpose of this law, leading to more teenage gays killing themselves. It's not even a case of promoting homosexuality as you have suggested, but suggesting that homosexual relationships should be in any way equal. That is not promotion. There is a huge difference between campaigning for equality and promoting something.
It's very clear what you're saying - it just sounds like backward drivel coming from a narrow minded, homophobe.
Yet a huge number of species exhibit homosexual behaviour. Humans are not the species this is most common in.Extra Medium wrote:
The instinct to reproduce is THE strongest instinct in the animal kingdom. Gay people's reproductive instinct is obviously broken so how the hell does that NOT constitute a mental disorder?
Do gay penguins or ducks who indulge in homosexual behaviour have mental disorders?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an … l_behavior
The reason for it being less common in people is more to do with social attitudes and taboos.
It is certainly not unheard of for some animals to have two same sex 'parents' raising their young.
It certainly seems that way. What other purpose does it serve? What is the point of it?Shahter wrote:
it's not designed for that.Bertster7 wrote:
A law designed to demonise homosexuality
Again, you say that's not the purpose of it - yet it very clearly and explicitly states that it makes it illegal to give minors the impression that homosexual relationships are equal to traditional relationships.Shahter wrote:
that's not the purpose of the law.To instil in the minds of children that it is wrong
'Forming in their mind a distorted perception of social equality'As public actions at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism amongst minors in this article should be understood activities on purposeful and uncontrolled dissemination of information in a publicly accessible way that can be harmful to the health, moral and spiritual development of minors, including forming in their mind a distorted perception of social equality of traditional and nontraditional marital relationships.
So, that means that in the eyes of this law there is no social equality between homosexual and traditional relationships and that to tell children that there is social equality is illegal.
Yes it does. Relationships not being treated equally in the eyes of the law gives the impression they are wrong. To tell children they are socially equal is illegal. Therefore, someone trying to dispel the notion that they are wrong from a child who has this misconception is breaking the law. So, the law does exactly that.Shahter wrote:
the law doesn't do that.a law that forbids anyone from giving the impression it is not wrong
Yes, by brainwashing them with the notion that gay relationships are wrong and making it illegal for anyone to tell them otherwise.Shahter wrote:
we will take care of our children the way we see fit. you, sir, can fuck off.The worst kind of insidious propaganda. Creating brainwashed chumps like Shahter. A terrible fate for any child.
You can take care of your children any way you see fit and I will comment on that in any way I see fit. I'm not in Russia, it's not illegal for me to tell anyone that gay marital relationships are equal to traditional ones, so I will continue to do so.
Interesting definition of propaganda there.A2TG2 wrote:
Actually comizar,Shahter wrote:
there you go.'ere be teh anti-gay law
here it is;
Adopted by the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg on February 29, 2012
Article 1
To introduce into the Law of St. Petersburg on March 12, 2012, No. 273-70 "On administrative offenses in St. Petersburg" the following changes:
1. Add Articles 7_1 and 7_2 reading as follows:
Article 7_1. Public actions aimed at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism amongst minors
Public actions aimed at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism amongst minors incur an administrative fine for citizens in the amount of five thousand rubles; for officials -- fifty thousand rubles; for legal entities -- from two thousand fifty to five hundred thousand rubles.
Note. As public actions at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism amongst minors in this article should be understood activities on purposeful and uncontrolled dissemination of information in a publicly accessible way that can be harmful to the health, moral and spiritual development of minors, including forming in their mind a distorted perception of social equality of traditional and nontraditional marital relationships.
Article 7_2. Public actions aimed at propaganda of pedophilia
Public actions aimed propaganda of pedophilia amongst minors incur an administrative fine for citizens in the amount of five thousand rubles; for officials -- fifty thousand rubles; for legal entities -- from five hundred thousand to one million rubles.
Note: As public actions aimed at propaganda of pedophilia amongst minors in this article should be understood activities on purposeful and uncontrolled dissemination of information in a publicly accessible way aimed at forming in the society a distorted perception of the consistency with the social norms of intimate relationships between adults and minors.
Article 2
The law of St. Petersburg takes effect 10 days after the day of its official publication.
Georgy Sergeyevich Poltavchenko
Governor of St. Petersburg
Saint Petersburg, Russia
March 7, 2012
Asserting there is or should be social equality between traditional and non-traditional marital relationships, in the presence of minors, is defined as gay propaganda under this law.As public actions at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism amongst minors in this article should be understood activities on purposeful and uncontrolled dissemination of information in a publicly accessible way that can be harmful to the health, moral and spiritual development of minors, including forming in their mind a distorted perception of social equality of traditional and nontraditional marital relationships.
A law designed to demonise homosexuality amongst everyone growing up in Russia. To instil in the minds of children that it is wrong - why else have a law that forbids anyone from giving the impression it is not wrong.
The worst kind of insidious propaganda. Creating brainwashed chumps like Shahter. A terrible fate for any child.
There was a series of reality TV shows on recently here in the UK, which showed benefit claimants volunteering to go back to the 1949 rules for the welfare state. From what I saw of it, those rules were awesome. Quite harsh rules, government powers to force employers to give people jobs/apprenticeships, low payouts - unless you had prospects of turning things around, for example the guy in a wheelchair got nothing a week initially (as he had never worked and therefore had no national insurance contributions to claim back - which is the way it's supposed to work), but after being assessed as suitable to work and being put into back to work training that increased to £100 and they found him a job in a call centre by the end of the week.
Why did it change!!!
Although the state pension was a bit low.
Welfare is a great thing. But it has gone way too far.
Why did it change!!!
Although the state pension was a bit low.
Welfare is a great thing. But it has gone way too far.
Yes...Shahter wrote:
nothing even remotely "dodgy" - this process is 100% political, anybody could see that.Bertster7 wrote:
They mentioned the Alexei Navalny case...
Obviously nothing even remotely dodgy about that because Russia is perfect.
however, that doesn't change the fact that navalny is a fraud and his place is behind the bars. the problem is that too many people who's place is behind the bars along with navalny are the ones putting him there. i only hope more will follow, but that's another story.
That the problem. 100% political. It should be 0% political and 100% judicial.
The case was a joke. You're a joke if you think it was in any way impartial.
They mentioned the Alexei Navalny case...Uzique The Lesser wrote:
lol i remember specifically linking him a proper peer-reviewed journal article written by an academic that had spent about 5 years of her life living in russia, studying its history very fairly and objectively. but then he'll say i "read the western media". the only western paper i read is the guardian, dude. i don't really read 'news' much. and the guardian very seldom mentions russia in any of its articles.
Obviously nothing even remotely dodgy about that because Russia is perfect.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHANyte wrote:
And yes, if someone actually enjoys cocaine for what it is, I'm all for them using it. But I'm 100% sure no one does cocaine because they're "into" it. You can get similar levels of that "high" with coffee ffs. People only do hard drugs to "belong" and be "hip" and/or "cool".
Every single thing you have said there is wrong - with the possible exception of the first sentence.
Yes. Of course. So there are no cokeheads sitting at home taking coke alone because they like it. Utter, utter bollocks.a very deluded person wrote:
But I'm 100% sure no one does cocaine because they're "into" it.
I know someone who smokes opium at home after a hard week at work from time to time - that's a hard drug. She does so maybe once a month, so isn't just hooked on it from when they became addicted when they were trying to impress friends. It is something they enjoy that helps them really relax. I do much the same with weed - have a joint at home after a hard day at work to unwind a bit. It puts me in the right frame of mind to stop thinking about work and to get on with some serious relaxation.
Yes. Of course you can. Makes about as much sense as the rest of what you're saying.Prof. Nyte - expert chemist wrote:
You can get similar levels of that "high" with coffee ffs.
Yeah. All those hipster crackheads. Of course.Nyte wrote:
People only do hard drugs to "belong" and be "hip" and/or "cool".
People do drugs because they enjoy them. I know I do. I stopped doing hard drugs more than 10 years ago because, whilst I still enjoyed them (mainly LSD, MDMA - I was never a fan of coke which is what most people seemed to enjoy, but just seems to turn people into bigger cunts than they were before) I felt they were starting to take their toll on me and so decided I would stop using them, apart from weed.
There are many, many reasons people take drugs. Some people do drugs to relax. Some people do drugs because they want an escape from reality. Some people do drugs to have more fun in a social setting. Some people take drugs because they are unable to stop. Some people even do drugs because of peer pressure as you suggest, but the assertion that this accounts for the majority of drug users is absurd.
You might believe that. You are entitled to believe that. You are also very wrong in that belief (of what the biggest reason why people drink/take drugs is). Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.Nyte wrote:
I personally believe I don't need to alter my state to be more social with others (which is the biggest reason why people drink/take drugs).
You seem to have no real first hand experience of this - because you don't like taking drugs.
How did you form this opinion? Did you talk to lots of people who take hard drugs and ask them if they enjoy it? Did you research this in any way? Or did you, as I strongly suspect, pull this opinion out of your arse?
UK or...RTHKI wrote:
ireland
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~8000000 = ~8000000
Must be trolling...RTHKI wrote:
not as many people though
60000000 >> 8000000
At least burning books is a bad thing in general...Uzique The Lesser wrote:
lol americans getting mad over 'flag incidents'. pathetic. makes about as much sense as muslims getting murderous when a book is burnt.
come out of the middle ages you fucking mongs.
Walking over a flag...
Do people really give a fuck about this? Don't they have less trivial bullshit to get upset about?
I think it stays in your blood stream for about a month. Pain medications can also stay in the blood a long time.UnkleRukus wrote:
I would never want a crane operator to have pot or pain meds in his system. They're put in charge of lifting several tons of items 30+ feet in the air. Stuff that swings like crazy in the slightest breeze. It is illegal for equipment operators to be under the influence for a reason. They put their lives, as well as their coworkers lives at risk.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
marijuana and pain medication. sounds legit/prescribed. for a medical ailment. you can't use this as some dumb 'degenerate drug user fucks up at work'. sounds like the dude was taking medication for some sort of ache or pain. if it's legal and prescribed for a condition, it's about as damning as saying someone "had high levels of caffeine" in their blood when something goes wrong. i thought your whole point 'IT'S THE LAW!!!'
This does nothing to indicate that the crane operator was in any way intoxicated or unfit to do his job. He'd have been fine within 24 hours and so the results are pretty much meaningless.
I don't agree with blood tests for drugs for precisely this reason - they can cast otherwise perfect employees in a really bad light, when they have done nothing that impacts on their work - one of the reasons they are rarely used. Employers hate to have to fire people that are good at their jobs over stupid bullshit - when I was working at Apple, loads of people got fired for having pirated films on their work laptops, which is stupid but doesn't impact on their work, the managers spent ages trying to get HR to let them off with warnings but to no avail and it caused some nasty problems.
Saliva swabs in the place of work for testing would be another story - being under the influence of any substance at work is certainly something that your employer has every right to be aware of and all without demonising employees who are great when at work, but might enjoy a joint or two on the weekends.
Wow. Nothing here about Islamist terrorists beheading a soldier on the streets of London...
That's where I studied...Uzique The Lesser wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmLGq6Odu7g
i enjoy will self on several levels.
Also, Will Self is awesome.
I'm not at all pro Catholic, pro vatican or even pro religion, but...
Below are 16 facts about the new pope.
1. His real name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio
2. He is 76-years-old
3. He is an Argentinean
4. He is the first Jesuit priest to become Pope
5. He is the first Latin American to become Pope
6. He was the runner-up during the last conclave that elected Pope
Emeritus Benedict XVI
7. He is a conservative known for his strong anti-gay stance. In 2010 he described homosexuality as a "destructive attack on God's plan." He was a fierce opponent of Argentina's decision to legalise gay marriage in 2010, arguing children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother.
8. Though conservative, he has criticised priests who refuse to baptize babies born to single mothers
9. He also believes condom can be permissible to prevent disease
10. He is well known for his austere outlook to life. He is famed for taking a bus to work every day in his native Argentina, giving up his driver and official limousine
11. His austere outlook towards life explains his choice of Francis as his papal name. Francis Assisi, who he is named after, is a popular Catholic saint who lived humbly and gave possession away to the poor
12. When he was made a cardinal, he persuaded hundreds of Argentineans not to fly to Rome to celebrate with him but instead to give the money they would have spent on plane tickets to the poor
13. In 2001, during a visit to a hospice, he washed and kissed the feet of 12 AIDS patients
14. He is respected for his intellectual prowess
15. He is an anti-corruption crusader. He has also accused Argentina's government of not doing enough to eradicate poverty
16. He has lived for more than 20 years with one functioning lung. His other lung was removed because of infection.
Good the way the presenters on all sides of these arguments twist the facts to fit their agenda isn't it?west-phoenix-az wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI
A key point here is that homicides in the UK are very low. Yes the UK is quite a violent place, but it's people drinking too much and getting into fights. It's very rare for people to die as a result of drunken brawling.
I'm not too concerned about a bit of violent crime like that. I'm concerned about people dying as a result of violent crime. That is rare in the UK, in part as a result of having no guns. Having guns gives violent crime much, much more potential to end in homicide. Guns facilitate killing very effectively. This is the problem I have with the public at large having lots of guns. There is more potential for violent crime to end in homicide.
Errr - bullshit.13rin wrote:
Which still doesn't invalidate my point of this entire idiotic crusade of confiscation reinvigorated by exploiting a tragedy through means of mass media disinformation. Oh, that stat equates to roughly 3 three days worth of knife attacks in England. Don't let your dumbassery get in the way of your fail logic.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah... don't let simple maths from the article you cite yourself get in the way of a spurious argument...-Whiteroom- wrote:
Clubs and hammers... vs shotguns vs rifles....multiple weapn stat vs songle weapon stat vs single weapon stat.
Rifles and shotguns=679
Clubs an hammers=496
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/2 … nife-crime
Maybe in the 90s. But there is fuck all knife crime here.Only last week a fatal stabbing was reported from the Blackberry BBM party in London, yet data compiled by the Guardian shows that the highest rate of severe knife related crime recorded in the capital in the 2010-2011 financial year is less than 0.5% of total crime for each area.
The highest number of murder knife victims (or otherwise where the weapon used was a "sharp instrument"), for 2010 and 2011 calendar years, was only six - in just two London boroughs.
As the chart below shows, in most London authorities the numbers of such deaths were on average between two and four. That being said, the figures for Southwark, where the stabbing took place just after a Jessie J concert, spiked from no homicide victims of knife crime in 2010 to six in 2011.
300 trains a day? The entire country? WTF?
It is currently 20:30 here and the train station at the end of my road will having another 80 services stopping there over the rest of the day. 80 services over a few hours in one tiny local train station compared to 300 a day for the entire US. Either the 300 figure is nonsense or trains in the US are really shockingly shit.
300 for the US cannot be right when it is 18000 just for mainline rail services in London - with some individual stations having 1000s of services a day.
Liverpool Street, one station in the city, is used by more than twice as many people as Heathrow Airport.
Your figures are either wrong or the rail network in the US is in dire need of investment.
It is currently 20:30 here and the train station at the end of my road will having another 80 services stopping there over the rest of the day. 80 services over a few hours in one tiny local train station compared to 300 a day for the entire US. Either the 300 figure is nonsense or trains in the US are really shockingly shit.
300 for the US cannot be right when it is 18000 just for mainline rail services in London - with some individual stations having 1000s of services a day.
Liverpool Street, one station in the city, is used by more than twice as many people as Heathrow Airport.
Your figures are either wrong or the rail network in the US is in dire need of investment.
Geothermal. Micro hydro. Both will save you money - but as with all these things, require a big outlay.Jay wrote:
Like what? LED lightbulbs?Narupug wrote:
What most people forget to consider when looking at whether to buy green technologies is the costs that they will incur from buying the non-green option. The non-green product might have a lower price, but that's probably because the price to buy the product doesn't take into account the long term negative externalities of the product. If you made all producers pay for the aesthetic, health, business, and consumer costs of their products, that charge would be reflected in the prices of their products and I bet you 9 times out of 10 the green alternative would be cheaper. No let me just be clear that I am not saying that all "green" products are cheaper. Some "green" products aren't really all that beneficial to the environment and the green label is just slapped on there to trick you into paying more.
75W incandescent bulb = (75W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$9.86/yr to run
14W LED bulb = (14W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$1.84/yr to run
Savings = $8.02/yr
Ok, but the incandescent is rated for 3750 hrs, and it costs $0.75 to replace. (3hrs/day)(365days/yr)=1,095 hrs/yr, so every 3 years or so you'd have to replace the incandescent for $0.75.
The initial cost of the LED bulb is $29.97. ($29.97)/($8.02+.77)=3.43 years to break even. Not bad.
Try getting that return on anything else labeled green and you'll be shit out of luck. Solar Panels? Maybe if the price keeps coming down. Hybrid vehicles? Nope, not without tens of thousands of dollars in government subsidies (which is no savings at all since that comes out of taxes, theoretically). Will organic food keep you out of the hospital less? Nope. In very few instances does the ROI actually favor green products.
Over the life of a geothermal system you save loads. Will take a decade or so to break even, but with some systems guaranteed for 50 years, the remaining 40 years would be profit. Seem to see it in a fair few new build houses and it would be a good selling point when buying a house, but I can see why installation costs put most people off - including me.
Micro hydro is great. Very cost effective. Unfortunately, not everyone lives by a river.
The rest, well, depends on location. Wind can be good - if you live somewhere really windy, coastal maybe. Solar can be good, if you live somewhere really sunny.
Ah - your points on French agriculture ring very true. My parents have a farm house in France and none of the farmers around there have a clue what they are doing. Loads of land and no efficiency, all paid for by the CAP.Jay wrote:
Those farmers are generally just fucking themselves over though. Modern farming is literally a science and good land is expensive. In my opinion, it's much more likely that a small farmer would use unsustainable practices, mostly out of ignorance, compared to the huge agribusiness farms that employ teams of scientists to extract every ounce of productivity out of the land that they can. It's largely why I don't understand the organic 'buy local' movement. It hinges on emotion based marketing rather than hard science. Frankly, I blame the French influence on food culture more than anything else. They're the most conservative, progress resistant, people on the entire planet when it comes to food. They give people who don't understand science cover to push their ignorance on other ignorant people.Bertster7 wrote:
You seem to be neglecting that fact that many fertilisers used have a harmful effect on the ecosystem around them, often leading to increased costs and bigger problems further down the line. When I was at school we went on a trip to farms where they would show the effects of badly managed use of fertilisers from the 70s which meant there were huge swathes of land they effectively could not use for farming. I have a friend who works in agricultural research for Bayer, he's always saying stuff like that. Hear all sorts of horror stories about areas being destroyed by misuse of loads of nasty chemicals.Jay wrote:
Or... most of the claims made by people pushing green products are built on hucksterism rather than real science and people see through it. To use the example from the article, what is the benefit of organic cotton versus other cotton? That there are infinitesimal amounts of chemical transferred during the processing of it? Ok. Now prove those infinitely small levels of chemical are harmful. Oh, they can't? Right, it's a placebo effect and that is 99.99% of the benefit gained by people buying organic products. They get to feel better about themselves when they spend money. They sell people a chance to attain smug superiority, nothing more. Higher prices and lower output on the production end due to inefficient use of farmland are the results. And they expect people to buy in?
I'm with you on the organic thing, because the criteria for something to be classed as organic are meaningless, not because I don't think there is a problem. But it's a problem with some short sighted farmers fucking up relatively small areas of land for short term gains. In the US, with the amount of space you have, maybe it isn't a problem - but here in the UK, it is.
The EU need to get rid of the CAP. It's absurd and promotes this sort of inefficiency in agriculture. The EU could be really, really useful and effective - but is hampered by trying to do too much and the budget is strained by unnecessary hand outs like those seen under the CAP.
Anyway, back to organic Vs non-organic. I'm all for being very careful with what is used, but from everything I hear, some of the chemicals that can be most disruptive to the surrounding ecosystem are organic, fertilisers with nitrogen base for example.
Basically, I am concerned about chemicals being used on my food but I find the organic label deceptive and meaningless. Whereas for meat I try to get free range meat in general because that actually means something and makes a difference to the quality of the meat.
You seem to be neglecting that fact that many fertilisers used have a harmful effect on the ecosystem around them, often leading to increased costs and bigger problems further down the line. When I was at school we went on a trip to farms where they would show the effects of badly managed use of fertilisers from the 70s which meant there were huge swathes of land they effectively could not use for farming. I have a friend who works in agricultural research for Bayer, he's always saying stuff like that. Hear all sorts of horror stories about areas being destroyed by misuse of loads of nasty chemicals.Jay wrote:
Or... most of the claims made by people pushing green products are built on hucksterism rather than real science and people see through it. To use the example from the article, what is the benefit of organic cotton versus other cotton? That there are infinitesimal amounts of chemical transferred during the processing of it? Ok. Now prove those infinitely small levels of chemical are harmful. Oh, they can't? Right, it's a placebo effect and that is 99.99% of the benefit gained by people buying organic products. They get to feel better about themselves when they spend money. They sell people a chance to attain smug superiority, nothing more. Higher prices and lower output on the production end due to inefficient use of farmland are the results. And they expect people to buy in?
I'm with you on the organic thing, because the criteria for something to be classed as organic are meaningless, not because I don't think there is a problem. But it's a problem with some short sighted farmers fucking up relatively small areas of land for short term gains. In the US, with the amount of space you have, maybe it isn't a problem - but here in the UK, it is.
First Sim City? PS1? lolAdams_BJ wrote:
I can remember playing the firts Simcity on PS1 back in the day.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Is it going to be on PS3 or 360?
What if you got a city next to yours and the guy quits playing.... and his city goes to shit..... and fucks your shit up?
You don't remember that. Maybe SNES, but not PS1 - Sim City 2000 was on PS1.
I used to play it on my PC in CGA, that and Populous and Prince of Persia...
Disagree.coke wrote:
That's got nothing to do with it, no one except 13 year old council estate kids buy a gram at a time.Finray wrote:
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise you lived in Dundee, Scotland.coke wrote:
No they don't. As Jord said your average buy is £20 for what used to be an eighth (but is now usually less).
I just picked up 2 0 deals the other night from a new guy I got connected with both seem decent weight/quality.
The majority of people who smoke weed do so very infrequently and smoke very little. A gram might last such a person a month or so.
At any rate, given current skunk prices, £20 will often only get you about 1.5g so what the two of you are saying is hardly worlds apart...
Just because buying a gram at a time might seem stupid to you or I, it doesn't mean the majority of those buying don't do it.
Yeah, maybe. It's tied to a stick and isn't something I've had to write before. Colour of string supposedly determines the potency. Red string or gold string typically.coke wrote:
You mean Thai Stick.Bertster7 wrote:
Or Tie Stick for 100/OzBertster7 wrote:
I usually get by the Oz. About 240 for an Oz here. Double what it was a decade or so ago.
Another staple.
Very readily available around south London and has been for many, many years. Nice quality and cheap. A bargain compared with premium skunk prices at the moment.