Phantom

Listening to the Bombcasts from the very first episode (APD), Jeff is still the staff member I find funniest by a long way, he does great impressions and is very fast and mistake-free in going in to impressions and such. He's so funny, hard to quantify why, but he has a great sense of humour AND the ability to deliver it.

Batman Arkham Asylum, now I have finished uni for the year I need to catch up on AA and Uncharted 2 so I can play the sequels!

@Juno500 said:

@Inkerman said:

@Juno500 said:

@Inkerman said:

@Menseguez said:

I think maintaining a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual marriage based on the grounds that Inkerman has suggested is very dangerous. The very fact that a distinction is made by calling it something else ensures that true equality cannot be reached. Sure, legally there may not be a difference in terms of the rights that are bestowed on each but social equality will never happen that way.  I suppose the point of your argument is that you are pro legal equality but not social equality? To me that doesn't seem to make too much sense.

But they are not (and short of an overpopulated utopian society will never be) socially equal, even if we do label it marriage.

It's not just about whether they can be completely equal, it's about whether things can be made more equal. As long as we call it something different for each group, then there is a implicit message that one is inferior to the other. Even if true equality is impossible, we can still try to get as close as possible, and so it's worth it.  Do you have any evidence that calling gay unions "marriage" will be harmful to the USA?

Bam! You hit it right on the head! There is an implicit message that one is inferior to the other which is what we want.   As to the USA specifically (and currently), I would say in cases like New York and other more liberal states, there isn't much of a specific problem per se. In more conservative states I would say it's better to not stir up even more hate than already exists. But my points are not in regards to any specifc society at any specific time. I'm simply that in general, an average homosexual coupling will always be inferior to an average heterosexual coupling, and labelling the two the same, particularly when the difference between them is something as vital and fundamental as the continuation of the species, is erroneous and wrong.  And no, I don't think its healthy for society to lie to itself to cover up real issues. We've seen such attempts before fail spectacularly.

You want to send a message to homosexuals that they are inferior? And the fact that it stirs up hate is not an excuse not to do it. That's the natural result of large scale social change, there are those who don't accept it and will fight against it. But in the long run it leads to improvement. The civil rights movement in the 60s led to a lot of violence and hatred, but in the end it was worth it. 

I want society to acknowledge that homosexual couples are inferior compared to heterosexual ones yes. Otherwise we'd all be lying to ourselves. And no, you've taken two separate issues and combined them. The question you asked was would calling gay unions marriage be harmful in the USA, I said in some states that 'benefit' of making them the same as heterosexual couples was outweighed by the social damage it would cause, ergo, 'harmful'. That does not mean that I am not for homosexual unions in every US state.

I am a big fan of the series, so I find them all comparable in quality, but I personally think that if someone put a gun to my head I would say Die Hard 2 is my least favourite.  Also don't let the haterz get you down on Die Hard 4, it's REALLY good, it's got the same charm as the previous three but is modernised enough to be a really good action movie.

Hold her goddamned hand while you're doing it, they love that shit.

I really am enjoying the new style and subtle changes to the formula, but I wouldn't say this is the best season ever, one of the Tennant ones would still win for me at the moment. 
 
Also I predicted the ending of the latest episode over a month ago, I thought it was relatively obvious.

It's because 99% or more of consumers probably don't 
a) know which was lead platform/what that even means 
b) care about development 
 
therefore the sales are just down to the propensity of people who have each console to buy this type of game, I would imagine the 360 demographic (with a larger install base anyway) is more likely to be interested in Rockstar games than the PS3 audience.

Typo on the last line makes me sad.

Kanto.

No, it's stupid and disgusting.