[QUOTE="XilePrincess"]

I have very little knowledge about the whole subject or about the guy so bear with me if I sound ignorant, but if somebody murdered that many people, why are they getting a statue? he doesn't sound like a hero, he sounds like a monster.

GabuEx

Because this is a memorial dealing with WWII, and it would be blatantly historically inaccurate to solely credit the Allied victory in the European theater to the Americans and the Brits.

But it's a D-Day Memorial, which Stalin played absolutely no part in. There should be no statue of Stalin at the D-Day Memorial.

The highly recommend the Three Musketeers and the rest of the novels from the d'Artagnan Romances by Alexandre Dumas.

Yes, but it seems as though you're basically saying that the US is an empire because it has an economic and military influence in the world, which would seem to me to imply that any country with a substantial amount of economic and military influence is an empire... which really seems to me to just be a complete redefinition of the word "empire" to the point that the conversation becomes meaningless.

GabuEx

Well, let's step back for a moment. The United States is the most pervasive force in the world at large, both economically and militarily. The U.S. is an "empire", not due to the antiquated definitions you provided, but to its being such a huge influential force in the world at large, which is to say nothing of the numerous territories the U.S. controls. The U.S. epitomizes the word empire in every modern sense.

To provide some background to the word "empire" itself, it is simply derived from the Latin word "imperium", which simply means power. I should also like to mention that the Romans had the beginnings of an empire long before Caesar even crossed the Rubicon if you look at the territories it had control of and the influence it had in the Mediterrenean region. Simply put, there doesn't need to be "Emperor" or an "Empress" for there to be an empire.

I love the Baroque era particularly, especially the compositions of Marin Marais. I suggest Le Labyrinthe or some of his chaconne's to those who've never listened to him before.

The 2nd movement of Bach's Concerto for Two Violins touches me quite deeply as well.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

Erm, there's been no argument against the person in question. "I suggest you learn how to argue" may be offending, but that doesn't mean it's an ad-hominem by virtue of being slightly insulting. There's no argument to commit argumentum ad hominem with.

T_P_O

Argumentum ad hominem doesn't have to be offending nor does it have to be an insult. Just as the word implies, it just needs to be an argument against character. Argumentum (meaning 'argument' in the accusative case of the word) ad (preposition meaning 'to') hominem (meaning 'man' in the dative case).

No, it is an argument albeit a poor, irrelevant one. He thinks that he Narly needs to learn how to argue, and Narly probably disagrees which can lead to a dispute, which is an argument.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="the_new_guy_92"] It's rather hard to find things that don't exist.the_new_guy_92

Well, have you bothered to check or are you to lazy to look it up just as he is? If it is the latter, which I suspect it is, then I can't help but laugh from the silliness of two people taking an argument much too seriously and being hypocrites at the same time.

I honestly don't care what you do, but I really don't think his argument is at all comparable to "Bigfoot was found in Nevada." I tell people to "google" things all the time, and it's never a problem. When I want someone to read about a particular bill, even listen to a particular band, I say google it. It's not a huge deal.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="lordreaven"] Then don't post claims if you are not willing to back them up. And because of this, your opinions and statements in all future debates are now null and void.the_new_guy_92

Oh please, hardly anyone in this thread has backed up their points in the same way it is being demanded of Narlymech. Just because no proof has been provided, it doesn't mean their isn't proof for his point. Sure, it's a bit of an inconvenience for everyone, but this is hardly the venue for serious argumentation; and, if you care so much, then their is absolutely no reason to look up the proof for yourself and, should you find any, link to it for everyone to see and pick apart.

Well, have you bothered to check or are you to lazy to look it up just as he is? If it is the latter, which I suspect it is, then I can't help but laugh from the silliness of two people taking an argument much too seriously and being hypocrites at the same time.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]You of all people should not be giving tips on the proper method of arguing, seeing as how this post employs argumentum ad hominem ("I suggest you learn how to argue"). T_P_O

Erm, there's been no argument against the person in question. "I suggest you learn how to argue" may be offending, but that doesn't mean it's an ad-hominem by virtue of being slightly insulting. There's no argument to commit argumentum ad hominem with.

Argumentum ad hominem doesn't have to be offending nor does it have to be an insult. Just as the word implies, it just needs to be an argument against character. Argumentum (meaning 'argument' in the accusative case of the word) ad (preposition meaning 'to') hominem (meaning 'man' in the dative case).

Yes, you're absolutely right. People should just stop having kids.

/sarcasm

People need to have more kids, not less. The world is not in an 'overpopulation' problem because of people having too many kids. If we didn't have all this technology and stuff. Then the world would still be fine, ESPECIALLY in 1st world countries. So if you truly want to help reverse this and help Earth, why don't you either:

A)Move out of your house and your comfy couches, and live off the land in a forest, or...

B) Kill yourself.

But since nobody wants to do this I think you guys should stop complaining and pointing fingers at people who are havings kids. I don't see why people shouldn't have kids.

PS. I don't know why you're ragging on Islam for it telling people to have kids, that's incredibly ignorant. What's it supposed to say? Don't have kids? That's ridiculous. Having kids is more important than anything you seem to think is important. I'd rather be in a big loving family with not much money than some tiny family with 1 kid just so you can live in some huge house and complain about useless stuff all day.

ushotdead

I kind of agree with your post. The complaint being made is just plain absurd. I'm not in the habit of dictating how many kids a household should have, regardless of their income. I'm much more concerned with the amount of waste the average household produces. I'm a little concerned with the size of the average house, which is much bigger than necessary. I'm even a little concerned with the average hours a person must work to keep his head above water.

[QUOTE="narlymech"] Nah, im to lazy. I suggest you look it up.lordreaven

Oh please, hardly anyone in this thread has backed up their points in the same way it is being demanded of Narlymech. Just because no proof has been provided, it doesn't mean their isn't proof for his point. Sure, it's a bit of an inconvenience for everyone, but this is hardly the venue for serious argumentation; and, if you care so much, then their is absolutely no reason to look up the proof for yourself and, should you find any, link to it for everyone to see and pick apart.