Nippon

correction: Gratz on your wins and on avoiding the 39 def clans. Even if they are only better because they have better levels, doesn't change the fact that they are better. you claimed to be retired yet you place twice as much as you possibly did when you were not retired, you also spend your weekends leading a 10 man team of mains sniping anyone that fi goes up against I like to see whats up in the clanning world, consider it a hobby like watching sports. I haven't logged in for 3 months, so the rest of your comment is just plain ********.

Gratz on your wins and on avoiding the better clans.

Oh look, it's this topic again.

Gratz on #5 P2P/F2P FOE jk, gj on your magnificent victories jk jk, really, good job I'm proud of you all :thumbsup:

Gz FI, props for giving #1 a try havoc :starwars:

EoMains and 1 itemers expected

>rivalry >FI or EOP black man, please.

Honestly, either you're a spy for another clan so you don't care or you're not a spy and after this every single clan will consider you to be one. At the best, this topic was a waste of your time, at worst it was the end of your pure clanning career at least in HPC's. Alas, my spider senses tell me that you're not new here at all, you have another account in a HPC and the clan you are in is most likely EOP or MM. What do I win?

FI killed P2P :(

How many weeks is that? Gj.

I haven't played this game for over a month, I haven't been in pure wars for over 4 months. Get your facts straight and stop talking shet fool.

So the streak ends for FI Looks like better calling or listening took this home for FOE, good job.

ITT: 2k10 clanners Gj on your trip FI

This! For the love of God!

Does this mean you'll use freezes in P2P?

Was enjoyable!

To answer your questions It was hilarious at first, but then gradually degraded into unentertaining nonsense. No, no and no. Its information content was 0, I suspect that for an uninformed viewer it would be negative. For a better view (or rather, a view at all) on both sides of the abortion debate, I suggest the documentary Lake of Fire (2006) by Tony Kaye http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0841119/

It is very important to notice that from a direct, personal point of view, there are 2 separate questions to be considered concerning abortion. First, there is the question of whether you would consider abortion in a given situation. Secondly, there is the question of whether an individual has the right to decide whether he wants to have an abortion. The first question (I) is a primary question that should be considered before the latter one. The first question has to do with your personal choice, assuming that you have one. It is safe to say, as the video suggests, that people give various answers to this question based on their individual values. For example; consider that you have been raped and are carrying a child that you never wanted. Or use an example of any other situation. Would you have an abortion? Disregarding the reasons for now, there will always be two answers to this kind of question; yes or no. The second question (II) is not the same as the first one. The second question adds another dimension; the question of self-determination and personal freedom. "Does one have a right to abortion?" To analyze this question we have to, therefore, consider two additional questions; (1) whether the answer to (I) is universal, that is, whether the answer to (I) should be general (always the same) or not for different individuals in similar situations and (2) whether our concept of freedom allows for limiting of personal freedom in the case of abortion. (1) is therefore a question of whether moral values are universal; that is, whether there is only one right or wrong choice in a given situation. One way to demonstrate this is with the question of whether killing is acceptable. A 'universal morals' sort of answer would be the biblical "Thou shall not kill", whereas a 'relative morals' answer would be "Killing is acceptable, if it is for a greater cause". (2) is the question of how we determine freedom or liberty. Notice that this question is only sensible if you consider the answer to (1) to be no, because if we believe in universal morals there is no freedom in this sense (because in believing so we say that each individual should act in a similar way in a given situation). If we consider freedom only in a negative sense ('the right to self-determination over oneself and one's property'), we may say that noone has the right to violate the personal freedom of the pregnant mother. On the other hand, if we consider the fetus to be an individual with rights, an abortion would be in violation against the rights of that individual, in which case we could justify use of force to protect this freedom. Here is another choice we must make; the answer is either that we consider the fetus as an individual with greater right to live than the right of the mother to have an abortion, or not. There are additional questions that have to do with the external effects on the society as a whole as well as the practical application of laws. For example; if the pregnant mother can't have an abortion legally, will she attempt to do it by dangerous, illegal means? If the child is born in inhumane conditions, does this lead to negative effects on the rest of the society (say, the child will become a victim of abuse and violence early on and become a danger to the society as an adult)? Which policy leads to greater wealth and happiness in the society (utilitarian approach)? Having formulated the question, it is now time for me to find my answers. My answer to (I) is yes, I would have an abortion (or, in my case, support my girlfriend). My answers to (II:1) and (II:2) are, respectively, no, there are no universal moral values and yes, the pregnant mother has a greater right to a choice than the fetus has to a right to live. Therefore I'm not only ready to kill the fetus, I also support 'pro choice' legislation because of my stand on liberty. As for the video, it was completely irrelevant and a true example of how moronic the whole abortion debate has become in the US. Instead of presenting all the facts and asking individuals to make their choice according to their own values, they talk about hitler, the nazis and imaginary moral dilemmas to confuse people. I can respect a pro-life stance if it is backed up by facts and understanding of the circumstances underlying the debate, but I despise the fool that bases his answers to this important and complicated question on impressions and simplifications. p.s. I know my formulation isn't airtight, the further considerations in the last chapter should've been part of the first question and so on, if you come up with a better one you are free to use mine as a template.

Gj but don't get so cocky

Happy bday EOP I remember that first pic :thumbsup:

Bunch of old vids and a prep vs Zenith? Okay.

What kind of gay emo-whiteknight music is that on the second vid, I laughed manically throughout the last part of the vid

Remember that time EOP won a p2p prep? Me neither.

The feel I got from reading the topic

#1