You realize bother Hitler and Stalin were atheists, right? They killed more people in a few years than the death toll of the Crusades, which lasted for centuries. In fact, historians agree that Hitler's plan was the eradication of Christianity in Germany. Plus Richard J. Evans wrote that "Hitler emphasised again and again his belief that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science. Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition [-] 'In the long run', [Hitler] concluded, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together'"

Oh, and forget that the 10 most deadly wars in human history resulted from politics, not religion. I mean who the fuck decides to kill millions of people due to some prince being assassinated?

You have some real major personal problems for being such an edgy moron. Don't even bother debating me on the historical facts on this. I know my shit better than you ever will

Hitler wasn't an atheist.

The problem with that line of reasoning, anyway, is that it just avoids the problem. The problem isn't religion, per se, it's a state of worshipfulness. Christopher Hitchens once said that North Korea is the most religious state on the planet. A totalitarian regime is going to incite worship in the same way as a supernatural one.

What. The. Fuck.

Britain will be denied a key role in the European Commission this week unless David Cameron replaces his male candidate with a woman, the body’s new president has indicated.

Jean-Claude Juncker on Monday expressed his frustration that “despite my repeated requests”, most governments, including Britain, have put forward men for the most important positions in Europe.

He warned that the European Commission would be “neither legitimate nor credible” without more women and said that female candidates would have “a very good chance” of getting one of the top jobs.

Fuck you, Juncker.

It's a great essay <.<

I'm not the one to look for grammatical shite because I hate that stuff but content wise it's well structured and well cited >.> However, it could just be because I have to do this crap relentlessly but do you need a list of references? Or is that not necessary/not included? >.>

I have a bibliography, I just didn't upload it with the google doc.

33 pages? Good lord.

w0t

I've done weed and cocaine.

Don't do either regularly.

Just to have this cleared up once and for all: I speak Dutch, but I am not myself Dutch. Calling a Belgian Dutch or vice versa is akin to calling an Irish / Scottish man "English". We have some sort of friendly rivarly going on, although we generally get along well.

And I'm sure we'll have plenty of opportunity to discuss more things with one another.

Oh, you're Belgian?

I genuinely thought you were from the Netherlands.

I hear that Meta Conjunction guy is swell.

Strange, I'm about as socially left as they come.

Obviously, you're Dutch

In all seriousness, we haven't discussed much with each other, so I wouldn't know.

I'm quite vocal and opinionated in real life, so not much difference there. I'm much more laid back, though, like in social situations. I think I'm easy-going when people just want to have a good time, and I'm better at not doing antisocial things like acting out on certain urges or desires than I was a few months ago.

My opinionated nature means I'm quite divisive, and the fact that I refuse to give up in an argument and will keep going as long as the other person does has led to some antagonism in certain classes. On the whole, though, people have come to accept/like me as I am.

There's your problem. Pennsylvanians, New Jerseys, and New Yorkers are some of the shitties drivers I;ve ever seen

Worst drivers, hands down, are Berliners.

Even worse than the Poles or the Londoners.

If we all met up, I reckon I wouldn't have a problem with any of you - bar one or two.

I don't know too much about you, but others have mixed reactions towards your presence.

I like your vienis.

Where's the fun in that?

NONE.

I WANT YOU TO BE MISERABLE!

I think you're trying to imply that having such a high fraction of wealth owned by such a small amount of people somehow increases wealth, but that's just not true. The only way to increase global wealth is by mining (or any other mean of collecting resources) or by inventing new technologies that allow the quality of life to maintain with a fewer resources (e.g. a computer chip that requires less copper). If your goal is to increase the quality of life for all people and not just the 1%, having the wealth distributed like that isn't helping.

I'm not implying that at all.

Merely stating that the economy is larger than decades ago when things were "more equal".