Kbzon59

Is this over???

Drunk people!!!... Maybe this is not so bad after all

What's the difference? It doesn't exist anymore...

Uh, and other thing, life (no matter whose) is not supposed to have a purpose. It just is. If that is your philosphy(life must have a purpose), then we might very well kill all people on welfare

Saddam is not a sick man whose psyche need to be studied, nor is he one of those great wrongdoers that will be forever remembered. He is no Hitler and he is no Vlad the Impaler. There is not much to be studied in him. He is only a man affected by power. He is not a good "people like him" example. I am not saying he was a good ruler, but he certainly wasn't mad. If the purpose that Navajo proposes is to be used, then Saddam can very well enter an insanity-plea. I don't agree with the death penalty. However, if he is found guilty and the crimes he comitted are recognized by iraquian law (not american or american dictated or new americanized) as deserving of DP, then he must be executed, just to respect iraquian state of law. However, if the laws that will put Saddam on trial were written by himself, during his ruling, then those laws should not be applied. Why? Because Saddam was an illegitimate ruler, hence what he does must be removed. So new laws will have to be dictated. The only problem with this is that those new laws will be totally americanized, and most likely, will use the Commonlaw system, instead of the vastly superior Roman germanic system. The new laws will probably be a carbon copy of american laws, and that, under any point of view, is wrong. Other problem would be that, for a new, totally iraquian set of laws to be written, at least 3 or 4 years might be needed. I am sure that, one way or another, Saddam will be executed, legally or not.

Why don't americans impeach their prez more often? Why hasn't teh people asked to remove bush? Has people really fallen for that "we are trying our best to bring our boys back" and cant see the fact that bush simply has to make a phone call to bring them back and chooses not to? Because of course, americans care more for 1 fal;len solfdier thn for thousand of iraqi children I have always been astonished by the american coception that the prez embodies the best of the nationm. If that is true, my friends, you are in trouble. Your prez is not very bright, he is warloving and unadequate. Do you gusy treally think he has a legit shotr at a second term? I hope not! Do you think he can sleep at night? And dont you get me satrted iN Vicente Fox. At least he hasnt killed anyone...

But don't buy any guns!!!!!!!!!

Best: Walther PPK 7.65 Beretta is for ladies Stirred, not Shaken

The theme of the "cause of homosexuality". Why are people gay?.

Of couse not, I am proof of taht, but mostly, it is integrated by americans

Now, is there any theoy regarding thsi theme that is actually supported by evidence? Total, undisputable evidence? Is homosexuality really a subject for biology and other natural sciences or is it destined to be for social and individual sceinces like sociology and psichology? On the latest polls, I say I have to agree with Aardvark, homosexuality is not an evolution related issue. Hisp oint that homosexuality doesnt reallu help to the survival of the specie is quite strong.

Ok, so it is offensive, tahnks for asnwering the question. And since you made me a favor, improving my english, I will improve your sapnish in the same manner: never call "joto" or "puto" to a latin gay man. By the way, is "queer" offensive?

While I am not a creationist, isnt it much easier for religious people to accept, say, that god created earth and austrolopithecus africanus and that god itmslef created evolution? Why the senseless radicalism?

Maybe the problem for the religious groups about the prevalecence of science is the fact that sceince is getting "too public". In a way, science is a slap in the face of some religions. So when a scientist fields a theory adn has open field to expose it, unlike religious propaghanda the religiosu leaders feel offended. I am just expressing an opinion.

But does "homo" offend people (gay people). Culd I say "Look at those homos" instead of "Look at that gay couple" (not that I am gonna stare at them) Writing "homosexual people" is quite long, so if it is politically corect I would prefer to write "homos" Dont dodge the question, of course I know that "homo" in sicence is perfectly normal.

The figt between religion and science is no reason to be scared of thje latter. One has to undersatnd taht they are separate matters. Thats it. They dont quarrel inside people's mind. Let's not use such as a excuse for society's understimating of science: People dont learn science because they dont want to and becuase public education shows science as an elite club where only the smartest and geekest 1% of the population are welcomed> Everyday science has been l;eft aside.

Can a scientist pray? Seriously.

I have noticed something (not just now): Ameicans live in fear of their neighbors. If you asked this same question in a latin or asian or muslim forum, the answer would be 5% for guns and 95% for no guns.

Since tolerance has a lot to do with a thread like this, I will ask a theme related directly with tolerance: Is it ok to hate the haters? Is it OK to be untolerant towards the untolerant? Feel free to move this question to somewhere else.

On the Ceasar and Augustus matter, you seem to start form the point taht they were homosexual. Few studies have arrived to that conclusion. Should we go with this few studies or with the mayority? While the Ceasar and Octavius Augustus relationship is unimprtant to this thread, I wanna set this thing clear: Very little points towards a homosexuial relationshiop betwwen them. This opens a question: is it politically correct to immediatly assume that someone is straight? Or gay? Statiscally, heterosexuality has the edge. But... I don't know what you think. For example, Is it OK to meet a man and say: Hey I wanna set u up with a friend of mine named Joe.

Of course taht there were a lot of gay couples back then and of course there was openess in ancient Rome and Greece. I am just saying that openess in such a big grade has been limited to certain lapsus of time. For every Rome and for every Greece, there is a Pink triangle situation and teh like. For every JCeasar and every OAgustus tehre is Geprge Micahel (let's face it: his career was never the same after the bathroom incident) and an Oscar Wilde. My point has never been that in the past, homosexuals were hated more than today. My point is taht the level of acceptance towars homosexual behavior has changed dramatically thru time. Both up and down. By teh way, I am not american (Proudly, I am mexican), so I have a question regarding political correctness: Is using the short word "homo" despective? A bad word? Like the "N" word? I am serious, I dont know. What about "queer"?

Nowhere, I just said teh above in teh "everybody is against me" spirit taht Saddam is most likley to be in.

The openess fo gaydom is Roman culture is not enough to assume taht JCeasar and OAgustus werre lovers. As a law stuident, I was compelled to do some research about Roman Law. This research included histroy of Roman leaders. The truth is that their relationship was so unestablished, taht some believe they were father an son, others believe they were cousins and many believe they were uncle and nephew. Going back so mucjh in time brings thsi uncertainties.

Well, he can tell his actions happened in war time. You know: his people versus kurds invaders. The war argument seems to work for Bubba W. Bush

I think that you have metioned something interesting: julius Ceasar and AAugustus are believed to have been lovers. So that means that there is no (trustworthy) record of that. Being that there are records of their female lovers and wifes, we must suppose that their relationship was surrounded by secrecy. Why? On anopther matter, I have a question: Are phobias considered diseases or something like that? Because if they are, then homophobia "cure" should be sought. I just ask this becuase if it can be cured, then it is not a disease, and not a true phobia. What I mean is that there are perhaps some better terms for homophobia. Besides, doesn't homphobia mean (etimologically) fear of men? Isn't homosexualphobia a more proper term? When was thios word first used? I know that this questions have little to do with the topic, but I thougt taht this would be a place where I could get an answer. I am genuinally asking, please dont think that I am being sarcastic.