Minecraft Forums

There's actually quite a few answers to this question. I guess it depends on how you interpret the bible. Here's a couple...
- God didn't 'create' disease (He created 'no evil'). Disease is a product of nature. God created nature, yet doesn't interfere with it.
- Disease exists due to the sin of Adam. We no longer have 'divine protection'.
- It's not God, it's demons who create disease.
- Disease is a result of human self-will and sin.

“The only safe sex is no sex.”

She has a point.

Quote from ClaytonRISING

I'd assume somebody who cant control his actions isn't having a very swell time.

It's easy to look at someone disabled and say they're suffering, because we know what it's like to be able bodied and able minded. Someone who is born like you mentioned, doesn't know they are disabled therefore they don't have the capacity to know the level of suffering you're talking about. We only say it's awful because we can't imagine going from how we are now, to severely disabled. That's why the thought of being incapacitated through stroke or other ailment scares the hell out of me - It only scares the hell out of me because I'm familiar with the concept of being mentally and physically complete.

Quote from ClaytonRISING

- Children born with crippling mental disabilities should be, for extreme back of a better term, mercy killed. They will never live a normal life and will most likely experience more pain and ridicule than I think it's worth for them to suffer.

Wouldn't it be easier (and more ethical) to address their pain and educate those who are doing the ridiculing?

I should say, it does irk me when someone waits until a person is dead to make an outrageous claim. My aunty does this all the time. She makes sinister and outlandish claims about my grandfather. I find it's pretty poor form considering he's not around to defend himself.

Quote from faissaloo

Like I said, it's only a problem when it's with real life.

But it is real life. You're not suddenly walking into a fictional universe every time you go onto the internet. If anything, the net has made bullying worse because it allows the bullies to invade every corner of a person's life.

- Australia should withdraw foreign aid to corrupt nations, particularly those with shocking human rights abuse records. Until then, aid is just a token move.
- Child molesters and violent rapists should be deemed mentally ill, to allow for indefinite detention.
- Religion should have no place in government, particularly in public schools.

I'm still trying to work out why this needed its own thread.

I'm really sick of the single minded views that are swamping the political debate. This idea that if someone disagrees with your opinion, they're intellectually incompetent.

Quote from LilPotatoe

Will people be so desperate that they'd take away their own life for relief from pressure, tourture, and everything else that goes wrong? Suicide is not an answer and is only a sign of weakness and that that man just could not ale things in their own matter. And suicide is nothing to forgive or take softly or lightly, and btw, if anyone was pushed over the edge because of bullying, that's just dumb, they couldn't get help jot stand up for themselves so they just take their life away? And on the other hand, why would anyone take time off their life to do something like that to someone, to be that one perosn to push someone over the edge, now that's just pathetic.

I think it's easy to judge the situation when you're someone capable of thinking rationally. The reason I never call someone 'weak' or a 'coward' for taking their own life, is because I have no idea what's going through their head at the time. We can try and relate it to our own experiences of depression and victimisation, but I don't think it's fair. Yes, I've experienced depression and bullying, but the fact that I'm alive and mentally stable only means I had the mechanisms to cope with it at the particular time. Someone who takes their life, simply does not. I choose not to judge them negatively for that. I only think it's a tragedy because we know that any feelings leading up to the event could have been dealt with had the opportunity arose.

Quote from TheEvanCat

Luckily I run the American Royalist Party. I claimed the throne of America a few days ago.

Watery tarts distributing swords is no basis for government.

You'd better be scared Singapore. They're going to get your dox and leave you some angry voicemails and send a few pizzas.

Quote from DismalAmoeba

A rock is nothing; a tree, however...I have no idea. But trees > rocks.

As a geology student I find this highly offensive and disrespectful and I would like you to apologize immediately and pay $500 compensation for emotional harm.

I'd like to see you go a day without using anything 'rock' based!!

I would expect, if you polled people in the US, a majority would want something we don't have now. I doubt it would be communism, and the details would vary from person to person, but it would be a system that is not currently in place. Libertarians would want a much smaller government, others would long for the good old days, others for more social justice, etc.

Quote from Taupo

This argument has been stated about 20 times on this thread, yes, people have a right to defend their property, but that does not extend to the right to poison people- that amounts to assault in law. You're not even protecting your property by doing it; the person can still make off with your stuff, you're just taking the punishment into your own hands which constitutes vigilante justice.

Again I'll quote myself. There is a difference between pointing a gun at someone stealing from you and telling them to leave, and shooting them if they do not (I still don't think lethal force is justified in this situation unless the owner's safety is threatened) and poisoning someone for stealing from you. The difference being one is solely defending your property, the other is punishing someone for stealing from you = vigilante justice. I shouldn't need to explain why vigilante justice is bad.

Let me tell you about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, OP.

This section is notorious for doing this.
"I hate rap, I'd rather listen to my indie punk alternative band because their lyrics are meaningful"

It's fine if you like that music, but don't pretend your music is somehow better because it's emotional. I personally don't really care if a song is emotional. If it sounds good, I'll enjoy it. Anything from AC/DC and Warrant all the way to Tupac and Biggie. I understand that people just plain don't have the taste for certain genres of music, for example I absolutely cannot enjoy screamo because of the singing. But to pretend your music is somehow better because it has a deep emotional meaning is ridiculous. Some people listen to music for that, other people not so much. Taste in music is subjective.

Also, somewhat related, stop with the idiotic assumptions that all rap is about hookers and money. Sure a lot is, I'll be the first to say that there are a lot of horrendously bad rap artists out there. But I'll also be the first to say, there are rappers (like Tupac) that have several songs just as "deep" if not more so than your "super emotional indie underground postcore alternative band."

Don't you think it's kinda sad that it's all controversial and unconventional for the pope to act like, you know, Jesus might actually act...?

Just because we somewhat understand the chemical reactions happening in our brains should not minimize the experience of love. If you drink a few beers and get a warm buzz, should you not enjoy it? It's just the alcohol in your veins that gives you that feeling, but does that make it any less pleasant? Is your joy contingent on not understanding why you feel it? Doesn't seem that way to me.