Parole Diver

I am fond of Indaslip, which compete with Tenas on absorbancy, have a nice aloe scent and, most importantly, are the most crinkly diaper I have been able to find in the UK. I used to get from Woodstock Pharmacy (who sent me a sample of them when I bought Tenas) but try http://www.bmsupplies.co.uk/p-774-indaslip-maxi-3-all-in-one-nightime-diaper.aspx as they look cheaper.

State number 5!

He didn't say he had nerves of steel

My maths teacher used to teach ISMAD (is my answer daft) as a basic check to see if the result of some maths is wrong. Given how ridiculous that 3 out of 5 claim is it may have been wise to check your statistics

Vermont says hi

Don't think so, I liked them when I was in them as a toddler and toilet training didn't stop the feeling that something was missing. The taboo certainly adds an exciting dimension to going out in them but I can't imagine wearing *less* if it were socially acceptable.

http://gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&am...amp;tags=diaper You can fine tune your search with other tags but scat and lolicon ones are included so watch out.

I don't think this really applies to gay marriage. Marriage is a private thing which effects people in their own home and tax statements and such and such, it doesn't suddenly make gays start having sex in public. Sure it is traditionally/stereotypically meant for men and women reproducing but stereotype is a pretty bad reason to resist the pressure for equal rights from gays and the legalisations in the past/present show that, as will the inevitable future ones. Anyway, "As goes Iowa, So goes the nation" is rather fitting quote being touted in the press about this though I can't find who first said it. Probably because of a typo but this doesn't make sense

Really you just need an antivirus, antispyware, firewall, keep your OS up to date and not do anything stupid. If you run obscure programs from dodgy sites or open programs you got sent by email you are just begging for a virus or trojan.

I don't think a straightforward criticism of the veracity of the Bible has been relevant in the thread, we have been discussing the excesses of its fundamentalist adherents. In any case blaming all of these things on Christianity is easy but is grossly inaccurate. The crusades were in part done by most who participated for land, wealth and power and in part in response to repeated invasions by muslims (done for land, wealth and power). Christianity gave the pope control of the whole deal but there is no reason to assume the same wouldnt have happened if it was any other religion. The dark ages happened when Rome fell and there was a power vacuum and are called Dark due to a lack of written records. There were lots of battles and suffering and lots of people were Christian but I don't think a lack of Christianity would have helped, especially since Islam was the competing religion. Wiping out the Indians was done for land, slaves were taken for economic gain, the holocaust was done because Hitler was a fucking nutcase but not with great religious conviction, the gulf war and every 20th century war was about oil, land, power, money, security and/or political ideology as you have partially stated. I'll give you the inquisition, and I'll throw in the persecution of scientists like Galileo but the other things had far more important reasons than Christianity, and I'd wager most would have happened without it. I can in a sense see how the more fundamental Christianity practised in places like Africa and South America causes serious damage though, every religion seems to advocate abstinence (which doesnt work, hence widespread AIDS) and subjugation of minorities (including women) in the places it is practised in its more severe forms.

I think the Bible itself has been considered a finished work since the canon was sealed well over a millennium ago, and can't think of any changes since then. There have been translations but since much of the Greek/Hebrew source material is still around im not sure that counts as a change to the Bible itself, though you only have to look at certain Bible Belt Baptists (and i'm sure many other Christians around the world) who claim that if the original texts differ from their modern bible then the originals must be wrong, to see that they consider their translated versions to be the official version. The pope has released his edicts, the Anglican church has its own policies, etc, etc so Christianity certainly evolves in that sense but I don't see Christians as a whole accepting new scripture as an addition to the Bible. The Dead Sea scrolls are an example of new stuff but they haven't been included in the Bible. I'm no theologian though so I don't know if they count.

What could possibly be considered be considered 'new scripture'? As it is the current scripture is a load of texts by anonymous Christians over multiple centuries complied by the church in Rome by picking the ones that suited their ideals at the time and were not too unrealistic. Who would get to decide this new scripture is canon? The Vatican? The Baptists? I think its unthinkable that some new gospel could be accepted by the majority of Christians.

Hello! if it makes you feel any better its not illegal for minors to look at porn (if dailydiapers even counts?), just for someone to knowingly distribute porn to minors, which the websites dont do. Clearly I looked at way too much porn as a minor Moving on swiftly, I'll be sure to have a read

This is not really the case in practice: by the time the convict has been executed the taxpayers have already spent more than they would if they had just thrown away the key.

The agnosticism/atheism terminology thing gets in the way of just about every atheism debate there is haha. Dawkins does say he is technically agnostic in that sense. Whether evolution applies on other planets is a good question. If we were put here by another species then I would imagine they would also have DNA, implying they evolved too. Whether evolution (or even life) would work without a nucleic acid molecule (or something similar) to store information is a mystery, one of the reasons finding even bacteria on Mars would be so interesting. I would imagine evolution is like gravity or combustion: physics and chemistry works the same elsewhere in the universe (probably) because its all made of the same atoms so evolution should too but I'm more than open to being proved wrong if we ever find life elsewhere. I don't think his 'the creator must have been created' thing says much about evolution though, he says it in response to the "god created the universe but he wasn't created because he always existed" argument because if a creator always existed then the universe itself could have always existed, meaning no need for a creator.