den_wolf

That's why there's the Ministry of Justice. Besides, I don't think a religious person would be more responsible than an athesit when it comes to moral issues and a moral society. Anyhow.. let's not go there in this thread.

Hmm yes that is offtopic, but let me clarify my view on this since we already mentioned it - i think an atheist can have a better grasp of the importance of secularism in governments than a religious person, simply because we are all prejudiced beings.

If Freud were alive now, he would've said it was because of women haha... :lol: Sorry I didn't quite understand what you meant by that.

Oh, Nietzsche would've been a great president, trust me!!!! Indeed, governments are supposed to be secular. Freud is far from being a philosopher. He was simply someone immensely occupied with sexual fantasies.

no one can figure out Nietzsche. not men, not women, not even God. but oh wait, God is dead. hahaha.. what about Mr. Freud, who thought women who wanted independence etc. were hysterical? LMAO!! i mean, i strongly believe that women are different from men physically and therefore socially too, but that's stretching it!!! I don't know. Hmm. I dislike Freud. most of what he said was only his own opinion, not based on scientific facts. i still don't understand why so many people take him seriously.

God?

Վահան Տերյան is a great poet. Because I could not stop for Death Emily Dickinson Because I could not stop for Death– He kindly stopped for me– The Carriage held but just Ourselves– And Immortality. We slowly drove–He knew no haste And I had put away My labor, and my leisure too, For His Civility– We passed the School where Children played, At Recess–in the Ring– We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain– We passed the Setting Sun– Or rather–He passed Us– The Dews drew quivering and chill– For only Gossamer, my Gown– My Tippet–only Tulle– We paused before a house that seemed A Swelling of the Ground– The Roof was scarcely visible– The Cornice–in the Ground– Since then–’tis Centuries–and yet Feels shorter than the Day I first surmised the Horses Heads Were toward Eternity–

I don't agree with this quote, but I found it interesting: "[T]he causes we know everything about depend on causes we know very little about, which depend on causes we know absolutely nothing about. And it is the duty of the artist to jeer and howl and belch at the delusion that infinite generations of real effects can be inferred from the gross expression of apparent cause." - Travesties, Tom Stoppard

That's hardly if ever paranormal.. LOL. It's called anxious episode-weaving (not a formal term, just one I constructed).. How do I know, well, I don't. But you don't know that it's paranormal either. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's paranormal.

Who claimed the constructed homo erectus was "loving" and "noble"? LOL. the reconstruction is not arbitrary. It is the result of scientific and archaeological findings.

Such as?

Mmmk.. we have observed the shape of the fossils, and deduced that since the males are the ones who have it, etc. etc. go from there. there's nothing about faith here. but mmmk, since you're intent on disagreeing, so be it.

I was watching a program about ghosts and the such once, and there was this lady who claimed to "connect" with the spirits in a certain house and "know" the way they killed themselves (which was, according to her, why they were haunting the place?) Oh man, if you had seen her, you would've instantly considered her the best actress in the world. HAHAHA. Pathetic is more like it. And she was all crying and stuff.. My my my..

faith and attempts to explain something are two different things. so I disagree with what you just said. if they didn't have good reasons to think so, they wouldn't have claimed it. otherwise it would be totally pointless. if science depended on faith even to a very small degree, it would cease to be science. science is about observation and conclusions, rather than blind speculations.

From Mars, with love. http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/02/14/

Oh? Why would you think so? Why would anyone be afraid of talking or discussing something with someone if they are sure that their position is correct? I don't understand it. Sorry, Sip. I don't get this one. Well, O.K., I'm not talking about INVITING them in, per se. But if they do come here on their own, it's fine with me, as long as the discussion is kept civil on BOTH sides, and that moderators moderate BOTH sides equally. But is that possible? That is the question.

Denialists? Of what? The Armenian genocide? Well, k, I might not agree with denialism, but what's so bad about denialists coming here and discussing things? I mean, a discussion forum does not reflect the viewpoints of its members, so if you let denialists in, it doesn't mean that you're a denialist forum, does it? Besides, not all denialists are dumb, even though certainly there are some who apply to name-calling instead of discussing or debating, but even in the other side (defenders of the Armenian genocide) there are such people. I would have no problem in seeing denialists come here and try to have a normal discussion. I have no problem with people's views, they are entitled to it. Just my £1.

a psychiatrist? what for? oh wait, did you forget to include the sarcasm tags? Or were you serious? it's a bit cloudy here, as usual. but not too cold. i like English weather.

Azat, dude, LOL, at least you have a better sense of humour than clubbing someone on the head for a mate. LMAO!!! Of course, I'm just kidding.

Mmm, I always thought they were too long, which is why I never felt like going to school on Monday. Or maybe it was because I needed a longer break? Hmm. but definitely, I hate longish Christmas vacations (I don't get much, just a week or two, but it's still too long).

Azat, is this you: http://efraimstochter.de/images/figuren_lindgren/karlsson_vom_dach_2.gif If so, you're not that laughable LOL. Oh man, I'm sure you don't look like that guy in the article.

Well, O.K, in that way it is, but I meant biologically speaking they are unrelated, or at least it seems to be that way.. not that I'm an authority on STDs..

LMAO Sip!!! :lol2: Indeed!! Especially that I'm wolfish too.. haha.. Yeah, very interesting article, isn't it? I was debating whether or not to post it, but the picture was just too interesting to not post it. I'm glad we don't look like that now. But then again, maybe millions of years from now, they will be posting pictures of us and laughing at the way we looked. You never know.

O.K., calm down. Frankly, I don't know you and how you act with regards to threads. That is why I used the word "unless", which meant that I didn't think you would be distressed by it, unless you were an exception. peace

LOL. Maybe she meant something like condoms? Maybe there's a slang word for condom that I was not aware of? LOL. Drugs / STD? Unrelated. What I meant from "clean" is uhhmm, someone who doesn't have STDs. LOL Hahaha, I'm really confused. I thought she was asking if you could get STDs from having unprotected sex even with an STD clean person. LMAO!!!