Arv_M

My question to you is, is it fair, just because some people destroyed their lives by addiction, to keep others from doing it? I know many people who smoke weed and have smoked weed for a long time and they're just fine. If you ban either or both of them, you'll have people getting higher than ever. Remember, drinking to get drunk wasn't popular until prohibition. Before that, people just drank wine and beer as a beverage. It wasn't until speakeasies that people got up and said "I'm gonna get f*cked up tonight!" I can smoke as much weed as I want. There was a time, even, when I went smoking everyday for about 2-3 weeks. I didn't lose my ambitions. There are 4.0, Honors, AP students. Valedictorians at my school are stoners. Also, in history, the United States of America was founded by alcoholics. Some of the most famous philosophers and thinkers and "geniuses" were drug addicts or frequently got intoxicated in one way or another. It really all depends on the person. If a guy takes a hit of the blunt and says "*BLEEP* life, I'm just gonna sit here and smoke", he'll ruin his life and one day he'll realize what he's done. But if a guy hits the blunt and says "man, this is fun, I'm gonna do it again, but I also have other things to do", then that guy will enjoy his life more and will have less regrets.

Ok, now I've seen all of the Bond films, except Quantum of Solace. Here's their ranking so far.Casino Royale (just really well done and bad *bottom*)Goldfinger GoldenEye Live and Let DieFrom Russia With LoveThe Living Daylights (this wasn't that bad)The World Is Not EnoughThe Man With The Golden Gun (good idea, underrated)For Your Eyes OnlyThunderballOn Her Majesty's Secret ServiceTomorrow Never DiesDiamonds are ForeverDr. No (good movie, crappy villain)The Spy Who Loved MeLicense To KillOctopussyNever Say Never AgainDie Another Day (it stopped being Bond when he stopped being Asian)Moonraker And the best Bonds...Sean ConneryDaniel CraigPierce BrosnanTimothy DaltonRoger MooreGeorge Lazenby

Once again, this boils down to personal choice. If someone wants to be gay, then why not let them? If "God" didn't want people to be gay, then why did he even leave them that option? Why didn't he program us to not want to be gay? Also, homosexuality does not discontinue their humanity; they are simply being themselves and aren't hurting anyone else (if they are hurting others, then they should be treated as normal criminals are). People should just stop being so judging. And yes, it's unnatural, but it also rids you of some potential competition. I guess people just need to be cool and let people be who they are and not be so judging.

Who are you to decide what is right and wrong for someone who is not yourself? Polygamy has been around for several millenniums and is still practiced in some cultures in the middle east. I do believe that if polygamy is legalized (I think it should be) we should have some rules, just to make sure that everybody in the deal comes out as happy as possible. First of all, each wife should know that they are part of the polygamic relationship. So, you would need a special marriage certificate that has signatures of all of the wives and the husband. Also, a rule that is commonly applied in the middle east; you must treat all wives equally. Say, I had two wives and I bought one wife a gold ring, then in the middle east, you would be obligated to buy the other wife a gold ring as well. Also, if the man dies, then the women involved immediately become widows and are now officially single. That's the most fair way to do it, to make sure that the women don't get their feelings hurt. However, if polygamy is made legal in the United States, it probably won't catch on due to the western culture that we pertain to. Also, I don't think too many women in the U.S. are humble enough to be part of a polygamic relation.

I personally dislike the testing of any human products on animals. It seems to me, very cruel and unusual that we would capture an innocent creature from it's home, and inject it with diseases and then experiment with cures. I believe that federal, state and local prisons should be able to take convicted psychopathic, sociopathic criminals and lend them to medical facilities for testing. Now, if there is any possible proof that the human being may be innocent, the operation should not be allowed to take place. This should only happen when there is significant proof that the criminal is guilty.This to me, seems a lot more fair than taking innocent apes from the jungle and torturing them.

So, let's say that someone puts a bomb in my computer and it explodes, does that mean that it's operating system goes to a magical land where other operating systems, except for the ones used by pirates, they must go to a land where they're constantly infected with viruses.

Ok, mind you, this is a guy that agrees with Richard Dawkins' idea that humans might be "gene robots", and I'm very much an agnostic. In my view point, the human body is simply a very complicated machine, almost like a really complicated super-computer. In fact, I think that the mind (not the brain) and stream of conscience are like the "operating system", if you will of the human body. Now, this might bring up the question; "if computers are like humans, then why can't computers think?" This is answered simply by the fact that people, or life forms have been evolving for the past 1.5 billion years and we've been evolving some form of the computer for only about 50-60 years (actually, the first "computer" was invented three thousand years ago, by the greeks but the technology was lost after a library in Alexandria, Egypt burnt to the ground). But could the fact that our more recent computers are evolving, like humans, mean that they could think? Well, if humans still exist in 1.5 billion years (we would be significantly different then), maybe it will be like Star Wars, where they "live" among us and have feelings.Now, I agree with the psychological benefits that you get from praying, but I tend to lean towards the side that agrees with what our hard evidence has told us, completes most of the picture and still makes sense and STILL agrees with sensory perception. As opposed to religion which agrees with sensory perception, but not with what our mathematical calculations have told us. If you want to pray, then pray, but I agree with John Locke in his letter concerning toleration, when he stated that churches are behaving like empires and not like religious establishments.

In my opinion, there should be no illegal substance. The artificial flavoring some of our foods (MSG and Aspartame, google it, read up on it) are HORRIBLE for you, but the government in the U.S. actually passed a law that says that you don't need to even put it on the label. I think that there should be a list of substances that companies need to have in warnings for on their label (warning: this product contains cocaine; warning: this product contains MSG).I've smoked weed no many occasions, and it's actually not that bad, the effects that you get from drinking alcohol are much much worse. Nobody's ever died from smoking weed (lung cancer doesn't count, because in those cases, there's probably cigarette smoking involved). Cocaine, Heroin, Meth, ect. may have caused deaths, but I think it's really up to the user. Also, mbafactory, it's not going to cause anarchy. That word seems to lose it's meaning, it's almost something that conservatives use to scare the rest into thinking their way. Anarchy is almost impossible in our society, because, let's say that all the world's governments one day, just disappeared. If that happens, then some other groups would rise up and take control. We MIGHT have a momentary anarchy, but eventually, we'd have governments. Legalizing weed (or other drugs) probably won't cause all of the governments in the world to disappear. Besides, look at amsterdam, weed there, isn't a big deal, it's just what people smoke. In my opinion, the U.S. "War on Drugs" is simply another idiotic liberally paternal attempt to "save the world from themselves". We're not going to succeed, so we might as well stop.

That post was made out of anger and depression on my part. I was extremely arrogant back then, but I was also simply feeling helpless, because I made bad decisions in the past and decided to slack off, and now, still being a pretty intelligent idividual, I was having trouble getting into college.

I agree with you that Live and Let Die was the best Roger Moore film. I also liked Man With A Golden Gun, it was cheesy, but I think Scaramanga was a cool villain.I really wish the changing directors would atleast TRY to keep some consistency with the characters. I mean, look at Blofeld. He goes from a bald guy with a scar, to a bald guy with no ears, to some old guy with white hair and then in Never Say Never, he has a beard.And Felix Leiter, Bond's friend in the CIA. His age seems to go up and down so much, it'd make your head spin and then he suddenly becomes black.Also, I do plan on reading the books, when I get the time.

I've recently embarked on a quest to view all of the James Bond films.Dr. NoFrom Russia With LoveGoldfingerThunderballYou Only Live TwiceOn Her Majesty's Secret ServiceDiamonds Are ForeverLive and Let DieThe Man With The Golden GunThe Spy Who Loved MeFor Your Eyes OnlyMoonrakerOctopussy Never Say Never AgainA View To A KillThe Living DaylightsLicense To KillGoldenEyeTomorrow Never DiesThe World Is Not EnoughDie Another DayCasino RoyaleQuantum of SolaceThose are them all in order, there are 24 in order. Never Say Never Again was made by a different production company and released at the same time as Octopussy.I personally think that Goldfinger is the best so far. I'm on A View To A Kill, right now.

Does anyone else here totally hate school? I swear to god, most of what I know is self-taught. School serves no purpose to me other than the ocassional socializing. I'm not trying to be arrogant, and I admit that I don't know everything. Your thoughts?