Posts by Stealste

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

    I think that to leave them cold turkey is failing them. What confidence are they really going to have in society if we cannot help them off a substance that possibly caused their predicament in itself? Yes, they are criminals. Yes, they made the decisions in their life to get that way, but surely the purpose of prison is not just punishment but rehabilitation? I've never used much in the way of hard drugs, but i have no doubt that coming off Heroin is an extremely difficult task. Perhaps they should be expected to serve extra community sentencing after their prison term to compensate, but they should not be denied help. It's a basic human right, criminal or not.

    Cars can be ran off all kinds of fuels- A friend of mine's father runs his off some form of cooking oil. For the most part, the fuel companies have too much to lose, they make great effort to supress any other form of powering a car.

    There is something beautiful about them, especially when trippin' though. Watchin em last night was amazing, though i'd rather people be more responsible. Much like cars, people don't seem to realise they're handling something VERY dangerous.

    Only ever seen one proper sunset... The power plant is in conveniently the right direction to send it's spirals of smoke blocking any good view of the sky most days. Those pictures are all amazing. :)

    Quote from shibari.surfer

    For myself his guilt in being responsible for crimes against humanity is not in question. I would like to have seen George Bush and Tony Blair in the dock with him as, in my opinion, they are also responsible for an "illegal" war resulting in many deaths.
    I'm against the death penalty. It implies that by removing the man we remove the problem. Its the systems that allow these people to flourish that we need to be challenging. We could kill Saddam, George, Tony or any of the countless other despots but unfortunately another would pop up to take their place.



    Thats humanity for ya. We're such a beautiful species.

    I think he'll just end up martyred... Although i'm sure it was inevitable. I doubt he was given a fair trial. From what i can tell anyone who made any hint to even slightly believing Saddam was innocent was instantly kicked out of any of the proceedings, from what i heard.

    I think it's all bullshit. I'd like a professional doctor, but what has that to do with clothes? I'd rather a doctor who cares more about his work, and the patients than his image.

    You'd wonder what our money is going towards when you can't even see a bloody doctor when you need one. The average round here is seeing a doctor 4 days after you ring the surgery. Pretty useless when you want to know whats up with you now

    Vondel Park :)

    What a place to sit and chill as the light starts to fade, either with joint in hand or beginnin to trip from shrooms. God i love that city, stop depressing me that i've got to wait months till i go again :(

    Aye, well like i said it'll all be down to opinion, although i hope yours proves to be true. I certainly agree that we don't need more weapons that could kill millions in this world... Unfortunately, though, not a lot of governments think like that. I don't neccessarily agree with what N.Korea's done, but i can understand why they did it.

    What about facing your fear of them in a lucid dream? You could even learn why you're afraid of them. But it's a lot of effort unless your already into that kind of thing.

    Fair enough mate, no point arguing over it really :) Peace!

    Although i mainly just said about Nuclear Disarmament, because, i have *some* experience in the matter. 4 of my family have served on Nuclear Submarines, my parents met in Fas Lane when they were both stationed there. My Dad's current role within the navy is co-ordinating missile attacks (which would include nuclear missiles, should there be a threat) between land and submarines. Through what he's told me, there'll never be disarmament, and i can understand that. As long as the technology to create Nukes exists, then no-one will ever give up theirs. The U.N. security council certainly wouldn't give up theirs- Basically because there's ALWAYS going to be another 'Rogue nation' who'll try and create them, either under threat from a superpower or otherwise. I just don't see it happening personally :p Thats basivcally why Korea can never use them- Because they'd be nuked if they used theirs. In fact, the ONLY protection we can ever have against nukes nowadays, is in fact more nukes, unfortunately. I too would like to see nuclear disarmament, i would love the day mankind realises they're the worst thing we ever created, but i'm also a realist, and i know that it just can't be done.



    The First two points you made can be covered by this- North Korea is on America's Rogue Nations list.
    Lemme guess... Who else was on their rogue nations list? Oh yes... Afghanistan and Iraq. Right. Coincidence, totally, i agree :)
    Iran and N.Korea are next on the 'Rogue Nations' list. Hmm.... is it also coincidence that they're both the only ones possibly looking to develop a Nuclear Deterrent?

    Perhaps he didn't bow the will of the international community, but seeing as how the international community is usually defined by the U.N. Security council (who, coincidentally enough, are the 5 BIGGEST dealers of arms around the world, to dictatorships and terrorist groups around the planet :)) or just the plain old U.N, who, at present, couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, and have done just swell to stop america fighting illegal wars and stop the international terror threat.

    Comparing him to Saddam doesn't work. I've read (i'm not sure how reliable it was, but i can always find the source i read) than an independant American survey found SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND people have died since the invasion of Iraq. Thats a better rate than Saddam could kill them off, so us getting involved will probably not in fact save lives, all it will do is save our Western Egos. And mean a lot of poor innocent Koreans will pay the price for the ambitions and evils of their leaders and anyone who believes they're worthy to be the world police, and fuck things up more.

    And, no offense, i share the sentiment... BUT THERE WILL NEVER BE NUCLEAR DISARMING. NEVER. NOT EVER. DON'T EVEN DREAM OF IT. 5 Year back from infinity is still a long time. As long as the technology exists, they will never get rid of them. The Principle of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is something FAR too valuable to the U.N. security council, and especially valuable to the U.S. - they can do whatever the fuck they like, because nobody has the weapons to stop them. The only way MAD can TRULY work is if EVERYBODY has them, so why should we deny them to nations who cannot defend themselves against an aggressor as large as the U.S.

    Quote from gingernut

    I think happiness is deffinately being wiht the people you love and doing the things you love and being true to yourself. :)



    Couldn't say it better... The only time i'm truly happy is when i'm with other people, connecting and realising that it's happiness that makes life worth living.

    I'm similar to most of what people have said already... I love the idea of it, but unfortunately my mind tells me only one thing... an end to existence, which is sad, because as far as beliefs go, it's an inspiring concept.

    I get the impression that this situation was caused by us Westerners. When we all help the yankees fight wars, then they say "North Korea, Iran, YOU'RE NEXT!!" can you really blame them for trying to develop nuclear weapons? The only reason we invaded Iraq is because they DIDN'T have the weapons to stop us. I'd prefer if nobody has the weapons at all, the worst thing we ever created. But this nuke elitism (and lets face it, George W. is hardly a 'safe' person to have a large collection of these weapons?) is rediculous. As usual, we westerners are saying "We're worthy, civilised people, you foreign non-white people are barbarians and will sell them to terrorists". They just want to be safe from the U.S: Corrupt World Police.

    I generally agree with not smoking- Inhaling other people's smoke bother's non-smokers more than having to pop out to spark up.

    But i would prefer if it was all discretionary. In all occupations you're bound to encounter something hazardous to your health, and it seems bar staff merely seem to exaggerate the threat they're recieving. The thousands of people who work on building sites a year that get seriously injured or die? Should we force the government to make bungalows to decrease falling debrie? Blunt powertools in case someone gets cut?

    If you don't like smoking in pubs, don't go to a smoking pub, or go to one with a non-smoking area, it's simple enough if it's that much of a problem. Many now don't allow smoking anyways.

    I'm just wondering... Has it occured to anyone that the whole Jesus thing could be a laugh on the so-called 'Virgin' mary's behalf? Seriously... in that time of humanity, i'm pretty sure getting knocked up by someone who wasn't your husband would be a bad thing. So, when everyone wonders how she's pregnant... ahhh...uuuuhhh..... "GOD DID IT!"

    I mean, it seems more plausible than the fact that God actually did do it. Who would know the difference? You've probably suspected how myth spreads, embellishment of the truth, a little lie here, etc. But i suppose Jesus appears to be a result of what happens when you mix myth and religion. Then all it takes is for some stupid sod to right it down, and wallah! There ya go, instant prophet and son of God! How would anyone know otherwise?

    Quote from sunflower

    i say tell her youve desided that glastonbury is a hippy filled drug learing shag pit of despear and youve relised that this would only hender your life rather than help.
    then explian that youve found inlitnment in the good book and would rather go to a biblestudy the same week end wich just happens to be in glasterbury..............
    see were im going with this ??!!!



    You, sir, are a genious.

    I'm sure her mother will NEVER suspect :whistle:

    But if God is perfect, and as you say, you can rely on him? But what of the innocents that died as a result of one mans sins in Egypt? The Pharoah made the decision to persecute the Jews, yet God was perfectly willing to send his Angel of Death to kill possibly millions of innocents? Surely this is not the action of a loving being. Perhaps the actions of a 'perfect' being (seeing as how if he was perfect, he would surely be perfectly evil, as well as good (although a complete contradiction)) of course, but not neccessarily good, as doesn't the Bible repeatedly highlight the fact that God is good? No person i know that loves me would ever kill me for the sins of another. How does god, therefore love me? I wouldn't even want people i don't like to die. And i would certainly not deprive even the most evil man of paradise. I would require nothing of him, except that he be happy. Does this make me more good than God? And as such, should i be looking for a God that can be an example to me, as opposed to someone who is encouraging me to be more callous, base, and a lesser good person, in the name of personal gain? For the bible appears to say nothing of morality, except that you uphold the illusion of morality through the Ten Commandments.

    Okay... it's a flawed argument, but then again, it's all down to opinion i suppose. I'm just doing my best to understand Christianity, i'll never follow it, but it's nice to be able to understand how people understand such things.

    Lol, hope you don't mind, but yet another question. I asked a preacher this and he was unable to answer. What good person could live truly happily knowing others suffer in the world? As such, how could i become a good christian and go to heaven knowing that my friends, when they die, will be burning painfully in Hell? He told me that my friends would be there in some version. Basically copies. I wouldn't want copies. I'd want to know they were there, safe, with me. Personally, i'd rather burn with them than go to heaven alone. I wouldn't betray my friends. He told me God was more important than my friends. That seemed very self richeous for an immortal and all powerful being, and personally i didn't want to accept a God that believed such a thing... But i digress, what would be the situation with heaven and the people i love in life? Would they be spared Hell for my goodness?

    My morals change... I don't like to keep anything too defined. My belief in peace is one... I'm a 'turn the other cheek' sorta guy, sure i have arguments, but if anything comes to blows i take the hit.

    I think i get some sort of sick kick out of it :p

    Well, that explained a little. However, he died for my ancestors then, not me?

    Another question, if god is omniscient, in theory he knows everything that has ever happened, or ever will happen. But we have Free Will? Do we really, or is it just an illusion? If he knows everything we'll ever do in our lives, ever action, then it all becomes predetermined, which is surely a contradiction of free will?

    Can someone enlighten me please? Many Christians tell me that Jesus died for my sins. It seems to be something many of them say without understanding, and i'm sure as hell i don't understand it. So... what does this mean? That we can no longer commit sins? For every sin we commit he spends time in hell? Or was there no heaven before Jesus? Seems a little random. I don't understand. Most christians i talk to don't either, they just repeat it as a mantra to make Jesus sound like a good guy ;)

    I know... A lot of older people are far more competant and useful than todays generation, but my point is the government are pushing for older people to work longer... and longer... and longer... Increased costs of living and the fact that very few people seem to be able to sort out a pension correctly, it's maddening. Most of the people i know will probably be working until they die. My father will be one of them, he can't afford to leave his job, and the Navy reserves will be forcing him out in a few years, further decreasing his income.

    Wow.... this whole idea would have helped me. I was a crammer... One hour of revision usually did me enough to get close to top marks. But coursework always let me down. Luckily my maths teacher in GCSE basically helped me cheat and wrote part of my coursework for it (it's amazing how many teachers have encouraged me to cheat over the years for the sake of making themselves look better, i think it's the education system that's the problem, not the students). I think it's a good call though, i'm a little elitist when it comes to education, and i'm sick of seeing the education system create thousands more Media Studies, Psychology, and Sociology students every year, wasting the potential of University. Perhaps this way will weed out those who will just put the hours into coursework they barely understand and actually concentrate on KNOWING what the hell they're writing about in an exam.

    It's a move the government have to make, but they're making it sound like they're doing it for the benefit of old and young alike- They're not. They're doing it because there's going to be a massive labour deficit and if they can't get old people into jobs, the economy will struggle. Essentially they want the little old dears doing menial jobs, to free up young labour to do so-called 'real' work. The population is ageing, and with birth rates decreasing, this isn't going to get any better.

    I just don't see how forcing employers to hire older people will make anything better- Some jobs, not to sound descriminatory myself, do require young fit healthy people, usually lads. I couldn't see most women or older people doing my job- 14 hour days of pure hard graft, with no breaks and food only when we have the time, which is rarely. I can't see as how forcing older people into jobs like these will make anyone happier.