ProHypster

You can be fine in one place then take a step to the left and collapse in pain or vomit because radiation isn't evenly distributed there, what's even worse it's invisible not green....

Yeah about that, sorry for the very vague poll options, I'll just treat I don't care as either neutral or as some other option.

It does work, and I've found it quite enjoyable but there is tons of nubs who just keep mining all the time and the maps are pretty gigantic for some 32 players max. What server do you play at anyway? I might join and play with the same nick as here.

Ross, Gashishin mentioned this in the Russian Subtitles section but check out this dead link: http://www.accursedfarms.com/downloads/videos/civil_protection_special_what_is_machinima.wmv

Спасибо за перевод )) А про Error 404, у меня тоже самый безпредел Только это не тут писать нужно, но я сам разберусь. Ещё раз спс!

It sounds fun, haven't played it myself... Wait a second, why did you bring this up here again??? You do know I'm talking about the section "Free for All" not this thread "Free for All" Oh and do visit and vote Blue.

Ok guys, to anyone interested I've finally found the book: Robert Charrete and Victor Milan: Wolfs on the Border I think I'm actually going to read it.... You can now close this thread I guess.

Why are you asking me that???

You answered it here: I could not, for example, agree that cannibalism is morally right for certain groups of people simply because they think it's right. That basically means to me that you don't respect their rights and that belief led and will lead to a history of wars like the Aztecs vs Europeans because neither believed the opponent was living right. (Aztecs with slavery, sacrifice, Europeans with Christianity), or no?

*quietly to myself: Just like the evolution theory.* Young scientists... just finding out about a theory and already saying that it was a guess. What happened to wisdom... Anyway here is a bunch of other theories proven completely wrong if you personally don't believe in that one: The Expanding Earth Theory Einstein’s Static Universe - (the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.) Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion The following is phlogiston theory background, it proves, when someone is wrong they will go on further with their fantasies and like a seed the theory grows into a tree of lies....: This is why I really prefer to talk these subjects with philosophers instead of scientists or religious people, both are so stubborn in defending their theories that they will make up calculations etc etc..

What are you talking about? Sorry, here is the proper Beginning of my text: You do not agree on cannibalism as a cultural right... (To the point that...)

Wrong: First paragraph on wikipedia: The phlogiston theory (from the Ancient Greek φλογιστόν phlogistón "burning up", from φλόξ phlóx "flame"), first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated ......

Visit and take the poll at Misc. Aff stuff. if you want your voice to be heard about my idea of splitting this section into two. This is just a promotionary thread, as otherwise, people rarely go there and I do need votes.

Sounds like a mod, do explain Michael.

To the point that you would try to invade that country and change their culture? Then you are not respecting their culture. A little sad to hear personally but that is the problem somce cultures believe they have the right to attack other cultures because theirs is superior and "more right"... I mean no offense but I don't agree with you on that, sorry. I'm out of this thread.

Please visit the Free for all section thread here and vote.

I'm feeling like we basically need to split it into two with some "debate" or "scientific" section and a fun section. The reason is that the debate sections keep appearing on the top while the fun sections are lower and sometimes forgotten due to the debate section ofc being so active. I would really like to see that happening please So can we do something about that? I attached a poll for moderators to check on the popularity of this thread in case it's a democracy thing.

Michael, smarter people won't. I know you are not a troll but lots of people disagree on your "poor" definition of capitalism and on some posts you posted in the Evolution topic. Which I personally also agreed on with others that your definition is actually pretty poor but I will take your arguments and others based on value not reputation, no worries. Idiots, of course, will use the reputation system as a means of proving something when they can't otherwise, but then we will know who here is one.

Okay, like I said in another post, define "capitalism" in your own words. Don't tell me to "look it up yourself" or give me a dictionary definition. I want you to define it in your own words. Like I said in another post, look at his reputation rating, lots of people said what you said.

I don't even know why Michael here says "We", I am Ukrainian for that matter.

It's called lassiez-faire capitalism, for the record. It's French! Which isn't, really, capitalism at all. The role of the court system to objectively (capitalism is all about objectivity) determine who initiated force whom and to objectively apply retaliatory force. Bob should sue Steve, like you said, and it's not up to Steve to say if he did something; it's up for the courts to objectively determine. Why? What right does the court have to get involved in a private matter between Bob and Steve? Capitalism is a system of freedom I disagree. Capitalism is an economic model. It has nothing to do with freedom. One can be free in a socialist or communist state. Okay, let's say that the "force" is not objective. Let's say it's subjective. For example, cigarette companies. Their products have an addictive quality to them and, through the use of their products, their customers negatively affect other people ("second-hand smoke"). Are the cigarette companies initiating force against the second-hand person? Is the smoker initiating force? What if I, as a non-smoker, sue the smoker? Or the cigarette company? Am I initiating force? Should it be a class action lawsuit? Are class action lawsuits allowed? What about oil companies polluting the air? What then? Like in China? I'm not sure what I'd call that. In capitalism, corporations exist by right. In China, corporations exist by permission. That's socialism, if anything. Not really. Socialism is where the means of production are publically-owned. Just having corporations exist by permission doesn't necessarily mean that "the government" owns the business' means of production. And just because the government owns the means of production doesn't necessarily mean that it's socialism. What right does a business have to charge money for things? Read other pages before posting, no new material was posted in your post...

Wait, wait a second here, are you guys actually trying to debate each other into a common agreement of what should die and what shouldn't? In the end what the hell is stoping you from it, religion and personal belief of course. Common, that's up to your religion and personal beliefs. If you believe abortion should be illegal and have it as a law now, move to Canada. If you believe it's a freedom move to the Netherlands. If you believe in inequal rights between men and women move to Iraq etc, etc. There's some countries that have canibalism a freedom, it seems right to them and only wrong to us due to our culture and common maanners, it's not up to you to decide for them. In the end everyone in the world has a chance to move to the place where they can agree with the culture the most... unless they are born in a country where the culture consists of not allowing citizens to move out, that just sucks... lol Anyways: This isn't a topic to agree on. This isn't science. Can we agree on this philosophy though? (Partially, of course I am aware of universal moralities but abortion isn't one of them)

I think I got to explain my position here: 1. I understand that evolution is in fact a scientific theory and has laws based on the theory assuming the theory is true. 2. Remember the centuries long scientific Phlogiston theory which also had laws within it once? Yeah. And that tried to explain combustion, something pretty easy and common compared to the problem of how we were created. 3. I also believe the theory probably will never be proved wrong though, that's according to the fact that most of the theory explains things that took place billions of years ago, another personal reference I have is from the bible, but that is not important to evolutionists I believe. 4. I believe Mutations exist, but read this and you'll laugh (To help you, think about the healthiest age of the sperm in a father, maybe you'll get it although I now doubt it): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece 5. It's not up to what I believe anyway, it is right to have your own opinion over this, that means don't take evolution for granted because the majority of a sub culture agrees on it, don't take religion for granted becasue the majority of another sub culture agrees on it. However especially if you don't really care about explaining the world and are a pesimist don't try to support either side here. Yes I know, still no paper done. One day, one day.

I smell sarcasm....

Um, no. This is either a lie, or you really don't understand how science is conducted. Science is based off of facts. There are NO accepted facts that contradict natural selection. It's a law of nature. Give me one fact you can think of that does. Well, no, at least not those that actually believe in atheism. If a kid puts on that he doesn't believe in god just to rebel, then that's not a real atheist. When a person makes a philosophical decision to no longer believe in god, they do it after introspection, and gaining understanding. Anyway, atheism isn't the only alternative to theism. I'm a noncommittist, which means I don't believe in beliefs. No once again, you're on a roll. "Evolutionists" do not exist. There are just reasonable people. Scientific method is founded on questioning what you see and understanding it. A child raised by a (healthy) nonreligious person would likely be encouraged to question and understand the world for themselves, weather that means joining a religion or not. You weren't even listening to what I was saying, were you? I was talking about a person raised to believe in god. God as you think it exists is unlikely and foolish. What your referring to is an innate disposition in humans to be constantly fearful of authority, which in religion takes the form of a god. Tricked by what exactly? Facts? Science? You think it's more reasonable to be tricked by a 2000 year old book with no backing evidence and numerous logical contradictions? This is seriously just sad. You realize your doing exactly what I described in my above post. You're disregarding logic in the case of philosophical questions because your religion tells you that this makes you more righteous. You still have yet to contradict what I say with any solid argument, and this is because you can't. Your response to this post will be that of course you can, and you will give inane examples that are easily disproved. You will reject every argument I make vehemently, because your faith tells you if you agree you are unrighteous. You are giving into the innate disposition I described above, to fear authority. You fear authority that isn't there and call it god. It's this fear that causes you to reject reality. You fear for your soul, and you feel proud that you are defending your faith. You feel you have defended this authority, and for this he may show you mercy or kindness. But as I said, this authority you feel must be there is an illusion. It's sad. I do not hate religious people. I pity them. I pity you. I guess you are foolish enough to think that my arguments were serious........ every time I write something you get the opposite information out of it then what I was trying to provide you with. I wrote in the exact way as you did for a reason (Think about why...you should get it), and your response really humored me, what you did is basically defend yourself against yourself except monotheist. I also said that I will provide a paper when I'm going to be free. Also I'm not some holy guy, that's not me, I just know philosophically that God exists based on what I studied. Bjorne please don't close this topic, I don't think it will harm anyone for this topic to exist. Just from now on I will only write facts supporting monotheism if I will write here and I suggest the atheists, (and eedobaba who apparently just doesn't care about religion overall) to do the same. That is possible.