Dubstepforum.com

particle-jim wrote:

magma wrote:Techno.

After Glasto I'm inclined to agree

What actual proper techno was even at Glastonbury though? I don't think I saw any on the line up

rayman612 wrote:Sorry bikes on sidewalks is much more obnoxious to ppl walking than bikes on roads are to ppl in car

How bout they just ride on the sidewalk and then whenever a person comes along, they go onto the road. Then they go back on the sidewalk after passing the person. Problem solved.

wolf89 wrote:

particle-jim wrote:

magma wrote:Techno.

After Glasto I'm inclined to agree

What actual proper techno was even at Glastonbury though? I don't think I saw any on the line up

In all honesty I don't know enough about techno to know whether or not what we heard was 'proper' techno, it was fucking tedious though

particle-jim wrote:

wolf89 wrote:

particle-jim wrote:

magma wrote:Techno.

After Glasto I'm inclined to agree

What actual proper techno was even at Glastonbury though? I don't think I saw any on the line up

In all honesty I don't know enough about techno to know whether or not what we heard was 'proper' techno, it was fucking tedious though

I think whatever it was at the very least called itself techno.

Simply awful. Turns out Richard Ashcroft had just been stuck in a wafer-thin monotonous four-to-the-floor stomp for two hours when he wrote The Drugs Don't Work.

Mason wrote:So if no one owns land one day someone could turn up and kick you out your house and lay claim to the land?

the Picts, Khoikhoi & Palestinians etal probably thought so too
even modern landowners under western laws are kicked off their land for freeways etc
lessees don't own the land they live on
& social housing recognizes the impractibility of owning land

ownership of land isn't axiomatic
it's one of many options for the occupation of land
one that has disbenefits,
including inequity.

Mason wrote:So if no one owns land one day someone could turn up and kick you out your house and lay claim to the land? i do agree that the national trust for example owning beaches and shit shouldn't be allowed but then again who would take care of it and keep it all looking nice?

Bruvington Levy, you mad? Good job you made that second point man, dread to think what would've happened to some of the landscape/heritage in this country if the National Trust didn't get hold of it.

garethom wrote:

Mason wrote:So if no one owns land one day someone could turn up and kick you out your house and lay claim to the land? i do agree that the national trust for example owning beaches and shit shouldn't be allowed but then again who would take care of it and keep it all looking nice?

Bruvington Levy, you mad? Good job you made that second point man, dread to think what would've happened to some of the landscape/heritage in this country if the National Trust didn't get hold of it.

Worrrrrrrrrrrrrd. This Government has already tried to sell off the fucking forests.

The problem with non-ownership in my opinion is that it leaves too much risk as time goes on, regimes change and people who aren't necessarily connected to the original non-ownership philosophy see their chance to take advantage of the situation. What's to stop a socialist government declaring all land unowned only for a future set of capitalists to sell it all to investors somewhere down the line leaving everyone worse off than they already were?

I see it as an unlikely risk in Britain or most 'developed' nations, but it's easy to see how much our society has changed over the last couple of centuries... there's no real reason it can't move a long way backwards if we give future generations room to do so.

heyy angry wrestler where is your "debate" then, you can't just go "I HAVE LOTS OF EXPERIENCE IN ADVERTISING SO I KNOW ALL WEBSITES WILL BE GOVERNMENT OWNED", and then leave it the moment i give you something to think about, little hypocrite

dubunked wrote:

rayman612 wrote:Sorry bikes on sidewalks is much more obnoxious to ppl walking than bikes on roads are to ppl in car

How bout they just ride on the sidewalk and then whenever a person comes along, they go onto the road. Then they go back on the sidewalk after passing the person. Problem solved.

no. use the road or get off the bike imo. there's a reason cities with bike lanes don't put them on sidewalks.

going from the sidewalk to road and back is even more obnoxious

see kidshuffle knows this

plus there is many times a walk way that is separated w/ grass from the road

& u cant just switch between the 2

My complaint was only about cyclists on main roads, they can ride round town all they want

only allow cyclists who can go 40+ on their bikes

If they can get up to the 50/60 speed limit I will allow them on A roads

mine would be making disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable. on the spot fine for perps

murky21 wrote:mine would be making disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable. on the spot fine for perps

How else could I spend my time on the internet when I'm supposed to be working?

Reverb wrote:dont animals eat each other?

Animals don't round up thousands of other animals and put them in factory farms.

SCope13 wrote:

Reverb wrote:dont animals eat each other?

Animals don't round up thousands of other animals and put them in factory farms.

They probably would if they were capable of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant-fungus_mutualism

Generalising about the animal kingdom is even more ridiculous than generalising about the human race.

Humans are also not the only species capable of making a moral decision on this. It can be proven that animals show a moral code in relation to their own and even other species, yet are still happy to eat meat.

Humans are so empathetic we occasionally doubt our own instincts in favour of keeping other humans and animals happy - this is fine, absolutely natural and as such I will never argue a vegetarians position with them; but for anyone to assume that animals only eat meat because they're incapable of making a moral choice about it is silly - a dog that sees nothing wrong with killing and eating a rabbit may show remorse for hurting a human... some animals know perfectly well the pain of losing a loved one to a predator, but still choose to inflict it on others.

Nature's cruel as fuck - it's best not use it as any sort of justification for anything. Just be glad we're shot of it.

well fuck you then basically ^^^^^^

lol forcing everybody to be vegetarians. smells like fascism.