Yeah, that's part of what worries me. I don't know.konfusion wrote:
Bubs, when's the last time you were really happy? ie situation/event?
-kon
Search
Search results: 1,024 found, showing up to 50
But I'm not sad. Just not happy.
Does that make sense to you?
Does that make sense to you?
Nothing.
No, the work itself is fascinating. The assignments are about thinking about the issue which is what I live for. My biggest issue should be expressing what I want to express within the word count.SenorToenails wrote:
Is it that the thought behind the large assignments is fascinating and the actual work isn't so much? If that's the case, you need to either force yourself to do the work or find something else to do (even if it's only for a short time).
Just general courses. My plan was to major in Philosophy.
I already work. But I don't see the point in taking time off because I don't know what I want to do.
No, they've been an gone now. I've failed the courses.
But still, the big issue for me is that I'm not doing, rather than the results. I seem to be constantly doing stuff that I don't really enjoy. Just mindlessly doing things. Even when I go places with people, and tell them I'm having, I'm not really. I'm just..........I don't know. Just doing things.
But still, the big issue for me is that I'm not doing, rather than the results. I seem to be constantly doing stuff that I don't really enjoy. Just mindlessly doing things. Even when I go places with people, and tell them I'm having, I'm not really. I'm just..........I don't know. Just doing things.
I'm not turning in the major assesment pieces because I keep putting them off despite the fact that I find them fascinating.
Whilst I don't know that I'm exactly enjoying uni, I can't think of anything I'd enjoy more.
Whilst I don't know that I'm exactly enjoying uni, I can't think of anything I'd enjoy more.
It's the grunt work that I love.Defiance wrote:
You may find the subject interesting but you've got to get past the grunt work before everything becomes fun.
No. As in just get a letter saying I'll be kicked out for failing the last 2 semesters unless I can show cause.
But that's not even the part that really worries me. The part that worries me is a I should be loving this. It's everything I want to do. And instead I avoid it doing things that don't even really make me happy (like watching TV or bumming around on the internet).
But that's not even the part that really worries me. The part that worries me is a I should be loving this. It's everything I want to do. And instead I avoid it doing things that don't even really make me happy (like watching TV or bumming around on the internet).
I'm failing uni. Not because I'm not able to pass the courses. Everything I've submitted has been graded well. And my not submitting work isn't a result of my not being interested or willing. I am. I honestly don't know why I don't. It's like I don't care enough. The work I'm doing is the sort of stuff I live for (wanting to major in Philosophy). Yet for some reason I don't care enough to do it. And yet I do care about it. Alot. I don't fucking know what to do.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
The peace will not happen. So I side against the ones who started the violence.
What's the issue? Obama has repeatedly had the tiniest of actions turned against him to show that he's some sort of Islamofascist Communazi, he's just making sure they can't do it this time.
Clearly you know nothing about Israel. Most of it's early PMs were former terrorist leaders.462nd NSP653 wrote:
Seriously? What his reason for crushing the skull? To save his life or those of his family? The prevention of the state of Israel?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Surely if can crush skulls with his butt he belongs in the circus?c14u53w172 wrote:
and the worst: he crushed the skull of one of the girls (age 4!!!!!) with his bare hands and a butt
Seriously: Zionists did far worse to Palestinians when they were creating/pushing for creation of Israel.
Ridiculous statement.
Surely if can crush skulls with his butt he belongs in the circus?c14u53w172 wrote:
and the worst: he crushed the skull of one of the girls (age 4!!!!!) with his bare hands and a butt
Seriously: Zionists did far worse to Palestinians when they were creating/pushing for creation of Israel.
Is that song about incest?ATG wrote:
The line is from here.sergeriver wrote:
That sounded too natural. This is not the first time you say it, is it?ATG wrote:
On your knees boy.
Posts on Zimbabwe are lucky to make it to 5 pages, but start a post on whether #7 was a controlled demolition and 15 pages later the debate rages on, without being derailed. No wonder Howard was so successful.
You asked what he taught, not what he did.lowing wrote:
So he said these things when? BEFORE or AFTER he lopped off those 600 heads?CameronPoe wrote:
But Burwhale it's no fun when you can't cherrypick the contradictory quotes out of context!!! You know the ones that very few interpret literally...Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
These are actual teachings from Mohammed:
Thus saith the Lord, "Verily those who are patient in adversity and forgive wrongs, are the doers of excellence."
"Shall I not inform you of a better act than fasting, alms, and prayers? Making peace between one another: enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by the roots. "
God saith, "Verily my compassion overcometh my wrath."
"The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr. "
"Whoever is kind to His creatures, God is kind to him; therefore be kind to man on earth, whether good or bad; and being kind to the bad, is to withold him from badness, thus in heaven you will be treated kindly. "
"Verily you have two qualities which God and His Messenger love - fortitude and gentleness. "
There are pages more of them too. Saying that Mohammed preaches intolerance, violence and convertion or death, really is very ignorant. And kinda stupid. But I guess thats what we have come to expect.
That's debatable.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Also, Israel are pretty fucked up like the Palestinians tbh. It's just that they're the lesser of two evils
Really? So all those passages about the end times when those who don't swear allegiance to him go to hell to burn in torment are there for what exactly?lowing wrote:
CHRIST teaches peace, love, tolerance.
Actually, no. First, Muslims are specifically required to protect "peoples of the book" (Muslims, Jews, Christians).lowing wrote:
Muhammad teaches, intolerance, violence and convertion or death.
Second, Muslims can't be taxed. Meaning that to effectively run an empire you have to have non-Muslims.
I think you'll find about the only religion that early Muslims did want to wipe out was Zoroastrianism, but that had more to do with the fact that it's what the nomadic Arab tribes worshipped before Muhammed came along. That is: Zoroastrians were enemy tribes, and the best way to make your followers effectively fight them was to declare them to be evil.
Kind of like what the US does today.
Where did I say that?Lotta_Drool wrote:
That would be like me saying that Zombie said that all Muslims are good. How is it that I can understand that he doesn't think that but he seems to have the notion I think all Muslims are bad.
And if that's what he wanted to discuss, he should have opened with those countries and their laws. Or at least mistreatment of women in a country that has such laws. This people were killing the women illegally.Turquoise wrote:
Where did I say it's ok in America? It's obviously not. Domestic abuse, especially against women, is very much a problem in every country. I think we both know this. What's most important, however, is that the law doesn't condone it here. It does condone it in certain Islamic countries.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Oh, well so long as they're just letting it continue because they can't be bothered picking up the phone, I guess it's okay.Turquoise wrote:
That's quite different from being acceptable. That's more just a case of cowardice and not letting the authorities know about the problem.
Firstly I think you'll find that Iran has a lot more public support than you claim (certainly more than the US supported dictatorship had).Turquoise wrote:
The majority of the Saudi populace was ok with the sentencing. This can reasonably be assumed when you look at how past cases have been dealt with and at how Wahhabists wield a lot of influence among the general populace. So, it's not just a case of us propping up extremists. The population itself is significantly ultraconservative. The average Iranian is considerably more moderate than the average Saudi Arabian. Iran is more a case of a country where the government is less representative of the people, despite being a so-called democracy.ZombieVampire! wrote:
And it's like that because of the government, which is propped up by the US.Turquoise wrote:
In places like Saudi Arabia, it's ok to beat your wife for certain things. There was even that highly publicized case of the female rape victim who might have gotten jailed for being with men other than her spouse and family. Had it not enraged the world outside, it would have been socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia to imprison her.
As to the main point of your post, I strongly disagree. The Wahhabists are strong because it suits the government, and nobody complains about the laws because doing so is unwise in the extreme. Having said that, even if you're right, it's still a bit rich for an American to take the high ground when their government supplies one of the worst governments in the region (and probably the world).
The fanatical public are going to defeat the US backed dictatorship?Turquoise wrote:
Of course not, because if they did, they'd get ousted by the fanatical public. Siding with the religious police provides the Saudi regime legitimacy among the populace. I'm sure the Saudis are personally not very interested in religious affairs, but they have to appear to be that way in order to appease the public. The Saudi regime is really just a bunch of glorified businessmen.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Yeah, sure. And I'll bet the government are doing all they can to restrict them, too.Turquoise wrote:
While the government is propped up by us, the religious police of Saudi Arabia are an institution supported by the people there. They have only vague connections to the Saudi regime and are somewhat autonomous.
Is that a joke?
How is it not much of a rebuttal? My statement was that more modernized countries are better on humanitarian issues, you brought up a country that isn't great on humanitarian issues, I pointed out that it supports my theory.Turquoise wrote:
That doesn't sound like much of a rebuttal. So, we can agree that they are more modernized than their neighbors. Jordan and Qatar are more moderate as well.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Who haven't modernised that much. Having said that, they are more modern than other countries, and you'll note that they're better on women's rights than some others too.Turquoise wrote:
Tell that to the United Arab Emirates.
And as I just said those things tend to get less influence as countries modernise and their populations become rich enough to be economically stable, something that hasn't happened largely because of Western intervention.Turquoise wrote:
I think we can agree that the West hasn't exactly made it easy for the Middle East to democratize, but... it's not all of our fault that they're still culturally so behind. A lot of that is the result of outdated traditions, many of which even predate Islam.
And they've been able to do that because no Western nations have been interested enough in stopping them. If anything, Turkey proves my point.Turquoise wrote:
As FatherTed pointed out, Turkey is a better example of a moderate modernized Muslim country, but again, this is because of their choice to lessen tradition and further democratic reforms. Still, even they have some serious skeletons in their closet that they still won't admit to (like the Armenian genocide).
Again, Australia hasn't been invaded.Turquoise wrote:
I see what you're saying, but the ethics of the Taliban don't exactly hold a lot of weight in an ethical discussion. Can you even reasonably defend them when compared to say.... Australia's ethics?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Right. And you have how many foreign soldiers running around with guns killing your citizens?Turquoise wrote:
Selling sex to the enemy isn't a crime punishable by death here. It's probably punishable by imprisonment though.
A fairer comparison would be to that of France in WWII, as I suggested earlier, where very similar actions were taken. If you want to get into a broader discussion of Taliban ethics, then come up with examples which demonstrate them (and certainly they'll be far harsher).
Only no. Unions are more influential than lobbies, and they're only really powerful in NSW. The worst influence we've had recently are probably the Exclusive Brethren with the Libs, and they did that by getting around rules relating to declaring donations (rather than donating the money directly, they distributed it to members who then donated it privately, meaning that each individual donation was below the declaration threshhold). That nearly caused a lessening of the threshhold, but not quite.Turquoise wrote:
You appoint random people to office?...
Anyway, as far as I can tell, Australia is actually more corporate than America. It's one of the few things I don't like about Australia. Lobbies seem to hold even more power over in your country than they do here, since, in America, we're so large that it's difficult to monopolize the entirety of our country's policies. I would assume controlling the interests of only 21 million people is easier than doing the same for 300 million.
Really? Like where?Vilham wrote:
To be fair to the British Empire they did bring prosperity to very large parts of the world.ZombieVampire! wrote:
We tried that already. They were just the same.
As well as killing a few natives which seems to be all the americans are doing atm.
Because the US has been doing that how, exactly?
We tried that already. They were just the same.
Have you ever thought maybe that's because noone ever starts a thread declaring Christianity to be evil?
In fact the closest to that, a thread declaring religion the root of all evil, had many people argue against it.
In fact the closest to that, a thread declaring religion the root of all evil, had many people argue against it.
Yes, it is. A person's comments are not independent entities: they have no will of their own. Those who adhere to a religion, by contrast, are each capable of independent thought, and will have at least subtle differences between them. That is: a person's statements all emanate from the same thought process, but each adherent to a religion has their own thought process.
But you said he posted every couple of weeks. Prove it or admit you're wrong.
Ah, so my criticising another poster for refusing to go into detail is a derail. Right. That makes perfect sense. I should, of course, have called a sub-commitee to look into creating a new thread instead.
3 > a couple, try again.
Except that generalising about all of a person's comments is a very different thing to generalising about all of a religion's adherents.
So then the damn straight wasn't allowable? Yet in your very next post you criticise me for a post that at least added something to the conversation.
And you don't see an issue with this?
And you don't see an issue with this?
Whereas your damn straight is perfectly allowable?
Ah, so you don't discuss the issue becuase if you do the discussion might grow and evolve. Right.usmarine2 wrote:
what does mccain have to do with it? this is about whether his wife should be subject to the same criticism.
And this is why I do not post more than a couple lines, it aint worth it. nobody sticks to the topic anyway, as you can see on this page, and most threads last a couple days at best. so, short and sweet makes more sense to me.
Actually, if you read the article that isn't what it was about. Or, y'know, the comment I made later.Turquoise wrote:
My mistake, they executed some burglars. Drool was debating the brutality of how they dealt with burglars.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Which isn't what the OP was about.Turquoise wrote:
You're overlooking one important factor here. When the Taliban ran Afghanistan, that's when it was socially acceptable to kill prostitutes. Technically, there is a law still on the books in Afghanistan that converts out of Islam should be condemned to death as well.
Regardless, he didn't provide anything about their treatment other than a single incident which, as I've said, is far from accurate.
Oh, well so long as they're just letting it continue because they can't be bothered picking up the phone, I guess it's okay.Turquoise wrote:
That's quite different from being acceptable. That's more just a case of cowardice and not letting the authorities know about the problem.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Actually, it's often an open secret.Turquoise wrote:
So really, this is a discussion of what's socially acceptable. It's not socially acceptable to beat your wife in America. Domestic abuse may still happen here, but it's prosecutable.
Yeah, sure. And I'll bet the government are doing all they can to restrict them, too.Turquoise wrote:
While the government is propped up by us, the religious police of Saudi Arabia are an institution supported by the people there. They have only vague connections to the Saudi regime and are somewhat autonomous.ZombieVampire! wrote:
And it's like that because of the government, which is propped up by the US.Turquoise wrote:
In places like Saudi Arabia, it's ok to beat your wife for certain things. There was even that highly publicized case of the female rape victim who might have gotten jailed for being with men other than her spouse and family. Had it not enraged the world outside, it would have been socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia to imprison her.
Who haven't modernised that much. Having said that, they are more modern than other countries, and you'll note that they're better on women's rights than some others too.Turquoise wrote:
Tell that to the United Arab Emirates.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Of course. That comes with modernisation. They haven't modernised because those places which have attempted to have been stopped by the West.Turquoise wrote:
So, on this point, you really can't deny that a lot of Middle Eastern societies find it more acceptable to treat women like shit as compared to the West's treatment of women.
Right. And you have how many foreign soldiers running around with guns killing your citizens?Turquoise wrote:
Selling sex to the enemy isn't a crime punishable by death here. It's probably punishable by imprisonment though.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Of course, all of this is irrelevant:
The OP wasn't about how women in the ME have less rights. Ultimately, it wasn't even about what's socially acceptable. It was about two women who were murdered in violation of the law and in a manner which suggests those who did it were worried about the reaction of the average citizen. Further, they weren't murdered because they were women, they were murdered because their murderers believed they were cooperating with an occupying force.
You ignore the fact that he's from Aus.
Also, technically what we have atm is demarchy anyway. True democracy doesn't work.
Also, technically what we have atm is demarchy anyway. True democracy doesn't work.
Which isn't what the OP was about.Turquoise wrote:
You're overlooking one important factor here. When the Taliban ran Afghanistan, that's when it was socially acceptable to kill prostitutes. Technically, there is a law still on the books in Afghanistan that converts out of Islam should be condemned to death as well.
Actually, it's often an open secret.Turquoise wrote:
So really, this is a discussion of what's socially acceptable. It's not socially acceptable to beat your wife in America. Domestic abuse may still happen here, but it's prosecutable.
And it's like that because of the government, which is propped up by the US.Turquoise wrote:
In places like Saudi Arabia, it's ok to beat your wife for certain things. There was even that highly publicized case of the female rape victim who might have gotten jailed for being with men other than her spouse and family. Had it not enraged the world outside, it would have been socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia to imprison her.
Of course. That comes with modernisation. They haven't modernised because those places which have attempted to have been stopped by the West.Turquoise wrote:
So, on this point, you really can't deny that a lot of Middle Eastern societies find it more acceptable to treat women like shit as compared to the West's treatment of women.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant:
The OP wasn't about how women in the ME have less rights. Ultimately, it wasn't even about what's socially acceptable. It was about two women who were murdered in violation of the law and in a manner which suggests those who did it were worried about the reaction of the average citizen. Further, they weren't murdered because they were women, they were murdered because their murderers believed they were cooperating with an occupying force.
In the short term. In the long term they'd just have to go through this whole process again to get a working democracy.Turquoise wrote:
Zimbabwe would be better off if they were reconquered by a European country or by us.
Well, if you're of the opinion that they're murderous invaders it is.
Not that I am, but if it were done on purpose those who did it probably would be.
Not that I am, but if it were done on purpose those who did it probably would be.
usmarine's standard line when asked for more detail:usmarine2 wrote:
i am not here to write a book report. shove it.
"More than one line is three lines too many!"
Which is essentially the same thing insofar as it encourages people who know very little about the issues to vote.
Yes they do, they get fined otherwise.Vax wrote:
I doubt they actually vote.
This show is trying to rile you up.
Of what they were killed for? It's in the article.
Not another one.
This topic has been done to death.
This topic has been done to death.
You do love me!ATG wrote:
On your knees boy.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Why does noone want to have sex with me?
Is it because I talk too much?
The US has roaming militia groups?
Besides which, they weren't killed in the name of religion. They were killed for selling sex to the enemy. Something like what you might have seen in Vichy France.
And given that these people were killed at night, I doubt the Taliban thought the locals would help.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Because it is not socially acceptable to kill people in the name of religion in the United States.ZombieVampire! wrote:
The US doesn't have roaming militia groups with as much power as the Taliban. It also has greater urbanisation and a better police force. And yet despite that many women are treated just as poorly. Yet for some reason their deaths aren't worth discussion on this forum.
Why?
Besides which, they weren't killed in the name of religion. They were killed for selling sex to the enemy. Something like what you might have seen in Vichy France.
Yes, but the US seem set to do it one their time, not the Iraqi's.Pug wrote:
It'll happen.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Because it's not my country. If they want the US out, the US should leave.
Is that a compliment or an insult?
He's a nutcase. He also believes in the NWO.
Because it's not my country. If they want the US out, the US should leave.Pug wrote:
Why do you feel that way?ZombieVampire! wrote:
I'm under the impression that my opinion doesn't matter.Pug wrote:
So you are under the impression they don't need any US military help at all?