- The little nitrogen-emitting widget that allows me to have nitro-bubbled Guinness or Boddington’s at home is one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century.
OK, I got 5! 
Having liked their music since the age of five or six, and essentially having grown up with it, learned guitar by trying to play their tunes, and obliged to acknowledge their profound influence, etc., etc., etc…
Well, they’ve just been played to death! (See Classic Rock Playlist Syndrome, or CRPS).
Don’t let CRPS happen to you!
[quote=“Mr.Nylock, post:234, topic:690427”]
[quote=“Ambivalid, post:233, topic:690427”]
Thank you, it made my day. 
Took a bit of shine off the compliment, but I’ll take it anyway. 
But yes, I don’t truly believe what I said either, it was just what the OP was asking for. Crime is a such a complex subject, there’s no one factor that affects it.
Finally, one that I can truly, 100% disagree with! SUPERHAL SMASH!!
They have been played to death I agree with that. But for me, I just was never really moved emotionally by their music. It’s tuneful and whatnot - I wouldn’t say it is bad music, but it never really was very moving; most if it just seems like pop to me. I can fully appreciate that they had a profound influence on rock, but their music still doesn’t do anything for me. I think Bowie and Pink floyd were much bigger geniuses, I even think the Stones and Zepplin were better.
I don’t think it’s as much “defending your faith” like having someone say “omg you’re a christian? why do you believe?”
It’s more like “omg you’re a christian? I’m not…you probably want to kill me don’t you? Or do you want to tell me I’m a terrible person and send me to hell? Hey my cousin is gay, you want to kill her? send her to hell? tell her she’s a terrible person?”
The persecution comes from people just assuming that just because someone is a Christian they are automatically an insane kill-em-all type crazy
I’m one of the few that would agree with you. After the ridiculousness of Roger Moore Bond had to be more gritty.
Also, Maryam d’Abo (from “The Living Daylights”, Dalton’s first Bond film) was far and away the foxiest of all the Bond girls.
You guys are my heroes this week! Let’s get this legislation lined up! BRILLIANT AND WONDERFUL!!!
Unfortunately, most of the devoted and vocal Christians I have encountered do hate gays and do truly believe that non-believers are going to hell. I remember once I was sitting at the train station and a couple well dressed people came up and started asking telling me about how Jesus loves me and what not. I asked them well, what if I were gay then how would he feel? It basically ended up being that I would go to hell if I were gay, I just told them I wasn’t interested in anything they had to say. Moral of the story, if you want people to like you don’t go around telling them a group of people you view favorably is going to hell; etiquette 101.
I don’t think it will work because I think people care too much about having influence over what happens to their stuff after they die. For this reason, people will never to consent to a system like the one you’re describing. Even if they thought it was a good idea in theory and voted for it, it’d be one of those laws nobody actually follows.
Your reading comprehension is less than impressive. Here’s the FIRST GODDAMN LINE of the OP:
I think you’re confusing my post with yours.
The good thing about it is that nobody can enforce their own will, so that’s at least the toughest obstacle out of the way
The same is true of laws against murder. So what?
Regards,
Shodan
Murder usually doesn’t benefit the living so there’s more of an effort to prevent abuse. I don’t see the same thing happening in wills, at least I’d like not to
Murder does generally profit the living, or at least is intended to. If I kill you to take over drug sales on the corner you are occupying, then I benefit from your death. If I kill someone and steal their possessions, I benefit from their death. And you don’t think anyone benefits from a will? Are you familiar with the term “beneficiary”?
Regards,
Shodan
But because they want control over what happens to their stuff when they die, they will prefer a system which does allow them to enforce their own will. I am really certain that if the laws were changed to disallow it, people would basically do it anyway.
Why? How?
Does this mean that if you own and occupy a house, it isn’t private property, but if you rent it out for somebody else to live in, then it becomes private property?
Are you sure you mean private property, and not real property?
I do understand that the ability to generate a steady supply of food or some other benefit from a piece of land was pretty much central to the very idea of property and land ownership at the dawn of civilization.
- Research using quantitative methods/randomised control trials is not the be all and end all of good evidence.
- Depression is not a chemical imbalance in the brain, and the causes of most mental illnesses and addictions are far more complex than just genetics/biology.
- Killing a burglar is not justified purely on the basis that they are on your property. Force needs to be reasonable according to the circumstances.
- Sex offenders don’t have particularly low recidivism rates, they just don’t get caught as easily as burglars or murderers.
- Society (and individuals) needs to drastically change its focus away from getting the best car, the best house, and the highest salary.
I think most people here would agree with all three of those.
Yea because non-believers are going around spreading that whacky stereotype right?