Ginger_Warrior

I realise the axioms of this debate change depending on whether you live in a country that has a largely private healthcare sector (the US), a public healthcare sector (the UK), or a mixture of both (Australia), but as a British citizen, I am not convinced that 'freedom to do things that don't harm other people' extends to consuming marijuana. There are detrimental effects of taking cannibis, just as there are with any drug. If you want to pretend this drug is harmless, then be my guest, you're only deluding yourself and anyone stupid enough to believe you. Like it or not, these effects have to be dealt with by someone--namely the NHS--at considerable expense to the taxpayer. Far from the argument of whether spending public expenditure on your lifestyle choice is actually causing harm to other people, it raises serious questions about what the NHS is actually there for. If I choose to decline a bus or a taxi to my local hospital when I have a minor injury which barely necessitates a trip to A&E, and the local paramedic service (rightly) refuses me an ambulance for such a frivolous journey, but then I see someone being treated for schizophrenia after taking a drug they knew and accepted might cause them severe harm, where's the justice there? Why have I no more right to choose an ambulance than someone else has a right to choose an illness-inducing lifestyle and get their treatment paid for it? A right of choice, by definition, cannot extend to some patients but not others. Not convinced by that one? OK then. There are hundreds of cancer patients across the country who lack access to new drugs which are available to private healthcare providers such as BUPA because, simply put, the government can't afford them. They are generally few and far between and the problem isn't half as bad as the private sector-gloating Daily Mail would have us believe but, regardless, those patients lack free access at the point of need to drugs which would provide the best prognosis possible. No one chooses cancer, people do choose to take drugs. Ethically, is it right that we allocate and prioritise resources to patients who have not accepted a lifestyle they knew might cause them harm? As someone who lives in a country that prides itself on being able to provide free healthcare at the point of need regardless of the patient's ability to pay for it, I cannot support the legalisation of a lifestyle that is wholly chosen by the individual under the pretense that that same healthcare provider will bail them out if it all goes wrong. It cannot be justified ethically, either in relation to other patients or the taxpayer, and frankly I'm not willing to waste vast resources and many hours of healthcare professionals' time in the interests of 'freedom'. That is not what the NHS is there for.

With Halo 4 apparently leading the 'Best of the Rest', Nintendo won't be too concerned about anything upstaging its new console in about seven hours time. We know by now that Nintendo will probably pack a load of gimmicks into the product (confirmed 6" touch screen controller anyone?). I'm just hoping it can deliver on more conventional games as well. Also, will they address the 3DS free-falling sales figures? An Animal Crossing title to be confirmed--fixing the huge flaws in the Wii version no doubt--and a first chance to test MK3DS. Plus a new LoZ of course. Looking forward to it.

I'm willing to do a survey asking whether people on here would support more Internet censorship but I'm guessing the results wouldn't condemn the widespread availability of graphic pornography. End of the day, you teach your kids not take drugs. Why not teach about sex as well?

If parents aren't going to teach their children about sex, and schools aren't filling in that void, it's not hard to see why so many teenagers view pornography.

So long as the child is clearly loved and cared for, so that it learns how to love and care for other people, I don't really have any principle for parents who stay at home. I think if one of the parents stays at home and cares for the child dotingly, responding to its every demand it will make the child less independent and less likely to develop its own conscience, which will only cause trouble when it has to go to school and, preferably, nursery before that. The only thing I would enforce on a child would be an interest in sport, or at least an awareness of how important team-work is, baring in mind literally every job you'll ever do in life involves some level of communication and cooperation with another human being, and more than likely you'll be working for somebody else at some point during your life. As well as teaching values, I think playing sport is an easy and effective way of keeping yourself healthy in mind and body, it's a source of pride and confidence, and it's a great activity for people to make friends through shared comradery later in life, so it's a win-win situation really.

The idea any 11 year old is capable of taking accountibility in a court of law while knowing what rape means is ridiculous, I'm sorry. If the argument is based on a 10 year old being tried for a similar crime, then that charge too was ridiculous. This is an assault and it's incredibly vicious bullying, but not an attempted rape.

I misinterpreted what he meant by government assistance. Having read properly I can see his points are asinine. I thought he was referring to success rates of addiction programs (government assistance) compared to those who are forced to go 'cold turkey'.

OK, woman who want to have sex might try to make themselves more attractive, but there are many reasons why women (and men) would try to make themselves more attractive, sex being only one of them. In any case, the OP is clearly unhappy about his life in general and making himself appear more attractive so he gets laid isn't going to fix that. Let's just all agree that he needs to do something he actually enjoys, not something which other people will happen to find appealing.

[citation needed]

There are other reasons for all of those things though. Work demands we appear presentable, hence women who wear skirts shave legs. That's nothing to do with reproduction. Wanting to look good != wanting to have sex.

TBH if you're only playing piano to get in with girls then the point of playing music's kind of flown over your head and girls who are genuinely interested in music will detect it a mile off. If you actually enjoy playing piano then just play piano for the sake of playing piano. I played drums once and it made me happier; it didn't get me laid but it was a creative outlet and it took my mind off things.

Smogon Breeding Guide Part IV gives specific IV inheritence examples for each HP type, such that a minimum 65 base power is achieved. It's very complicated and you'll probably take 5 hours to understand it properly like I did. :) TBH most WiFiers I know just get someone to hack Pokemon who need HP and when you look at the work needed to achieve HP it's not hard to see why.

If whimsical insanity be the rules we must follow, then we have to. In any case, rightly or wrongly, the scripts are illegal. We're not exactly in a position to be telling Jagex otherwise, and tbh even if we were, I for one have got more important problems to solve.

Sorry for the double post, mobile TIF has no edit feature. If you want to find out a Pokemon's Hidden Power type, the young man in Mistralton City's Pokemon Centre will tell you its type but not its power. If IV chaining, the Ace Trainer in Gear Station is useful for discovering flawless IVs. You can also use Rare Candies along with Serebii's IV calculator to work out your Pokemon's IVs and calculate the Hidden Power manually, just remember to soft reset after using them. These are the diagnostic tools players use to calculate HP type and power.

Hidden Power's type and power is dictated from the moment you either see the Pokemon in the wild, or receive its egg. It is permanent and cannot be altered at any point because they are calculated from the Pokemon's IVs, which are also permanent. If you have a lot of patience you can breed for specific HP types by IV chaining; there's a fantastic guide on Smogon for Gen IV, for the minor differences between Gen V there's a WIP Breeding Guide on the site's forum.

Lol, only six months ago I remember you lot singing Jagex's praises when asked whether RuneScape had 'jumped the shark'. I'm not sure it was you specifically but there was certainly a vocal majority who thought it hadn't. But that's a debate for another time I guess.

There is also a question of Tip.It's independence here. Several people on this thread have claimed, wrongly, that the site's platinum status has affected the enforcement of certain rules. 'Hiring' someone from Jagex in the way you're suggesting would mean that impartiality flying out of the window.

Hmm... I understand that ideal. But you can fully understand why a company would want their specialist staff to be actually, y'know, working instead of attending Q&A sessions.

Oh, 'kay I'm with you. I can't see how an email or a post makes much of a difference.

100 + 30(1+4) = 250. So yeah it's 30 Litwick on Power Lens, then one on Macho Brace. You want to be switching into a Fire type btw. They have a nasty habit of burning with Will-O-Wisp/Flame Body.

I don't follow, should they what? Sorry if I'm being oblivious.

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

Just a small caveat that power items give four additional EVs in the item's respective stat, as well as what you would normally otherwise receive. So: A Power Lens (+4 SpA EVs) on a wild Tranquil (2 ATK EVs) results in four SpA and two ATK EVs, not just four SpA EVs.A Power Anklet (+4 SPE EVs) on a wild Basculin (2 SPE EVs) results in six SPE EVs, or rather (4 + 2) SPE EVs. Also in Generation V, Lv100 Pokemon receive EVs normally even though they technically receive no further EXP once reaching that level.

That wasn't my opinion, I'm sorry for misleading you there. My viewpoint is that if you make a statement that is then challenged by somebody else, then you have to prove it. TBH I don't get the big deal here. The OT board has managed to follow this principle pretty well for about five years now, in that if you make the original claim (like, I don't know... '40% of Muslims are terrrorists' or something daft and silly), then you have to go find proof for it, and if you can't, then it's assumed the claim is not yet true. It's not up to me as someone who disbelieves that statement to find proof confirming otherwise when you haven't proved the original statement has any real basis. If a claim has been proven in a previous topic/guide/post/YouTube video/Holy Book, then it surely won't be too hard to find an URL for it. The burden of proof doesn't need to be waived just because it's already been proved; that's the whole point of proving it in the first place - it acts as a reference.

Too generic a thread for me. Hitler did some pretty awful things, but there are some Germans who point you in the direction of very specific examples he did improve life with, and they'd be right for doing so. He was of course an evil dictator the like of which I hope the world never had to deal with again. I'm happy with that assessment.