Ginger_Warrior

Given I'm not a sociopath, inherent to the fact I've not yet killed anyone, I can't possibly know what I'd want or not want if I did become one. Personally, I'm not a great fan in 'eye for an eye'. It's like saying, "I think you did wrong there, so I'm going to do that same thing just to prove I'm in the right."

I'd echo that sentiment. I'm not going to suggest max total has become easy, but it's got the point where you may as well stick an asterisk on the end of names like Zezima and n0valyfe, because it was much harder for them to achieve it.

Oh god, well now you've got their attention. :rolleyes: It's not even like they've removed effigies from the game.

I get what you're saying. I should have added unlawfully somewhere in that statement. Anyways, I believe war can be justified, but the methods of war can be unethical. Killing in a civilian sense can also be justified, if in self-defence and within reasonable force. Should they also face the death penalty? How do you differentiate war ethically into the type where one country invades another as a direct attack against that country's sovereignty, or the type where a group of people within a country rebel against their country of origin in order to gain their autonomy, such that we can conveniently deduce which is justifiable and which is not? War isn't the only justifiable way of killing somebody.

Surely, the way to make Runecrafting less of an "abysmal" grind is to incentivise it with irregular 'random' rewards, similar to slayer drops, or increase the XP rate in relation to skill level. As well as thinking effigies were overpowered and shouldn't be used to essentially replace training a skill, I've also believed Runecrafting experience gained should be more linked to the runes created rather than the essence used. That way the XP rates grow exponentially as you grow in level, rather than staying at the same amount of XP.

I always felt--and I'll probably get flamed to hell for saying this--that effigies fitted in the same category as Pest Control did when it was first released. Popular amongst players because of the high rewards it offers, but for the same reason, ultimately over-powered and rendering other features of the game redundant. There is a role for them, as there was and still is for Pest Control, and that role is to provide bonus xp for slaying high levelled monsters, but the role shouldn't be to replace training the skill itself. I'm not going to say players "abused" effigies, because Jagex put them there for players to use. But the efficiency with which they were being used to train Runecrafting etc. is too high.

I never stated eyewitness testinomy is an unreliable source of evidence. Archeology, and all the various field of study connected to it, confirms a lot of what we know about the ancient world. There were no testimonies for the dinosaurs existing, but we still know that they did, where they were, and when. Using scientific study, we've been able to confirm that a lot of remedies offered by the Church to cure ailments and disease actually worked. For example, from eyewitness testimony, we know they used to leave wine in a brass vessel and use that "blessed" liquid to clean wounds. We know this treatment worked, because the wine and the brass produce a base-acid reaction which produces a salt which acts as an antiseptic. The testimony was right, only they didn't know why they were right. All I'm doing here is highlighting the implausiblity of the specific testinomy mentioned, as any lawyer would in a court if presented with a similarly unbelievable allegation. It is literally impossible to feed that many people with such little food, therefore that sequence of events cannot be taught as 'fact'.

Science makes no secret of the way studies only have various degrees of accuracy, indeed, calculating the accuracy is a mandatory requirement of any scientific study. I don't see the same soul-searching when it comes to holy texts. Instead of denying that Jesus really did feed a whole crowd of people with a few fish and some bread, which is of course nutritionally impossible, they say it's a "metaphor". :rolleyes: Again, it's a metaphor I can appreciate the meaning of (that when people share resources, they generally make those resources go further), but it's a factually incorrect metaphor nevertheless, and therefore should not be taught with an assertive tone which implies Jesus really did manage to achieve that. Of course, you could put it down to a miracle, but then there's no factual basis for Jesus performing miracles either, so you're back to square one whichever way you go.

I don't see why religion should be a taboo subject, so long as there is an acceptance that religion is a form of philosophy, whereas the scientific method is a means of establishing the objective truth. I gained a lot from being taught religious education until sixteen (a mandatory requirement in the UK), but they shouldn't be taught in the same way. A religion is a system of values and beliefs which people think are true, science is an objective means of finding out what is actually true, and therefore should be taught in an objective, matter-of-fact way. I'm not really sure how you can argue against that without undermining the factual basis of either religion or science.

I'm not sure The Old Nite would've been in the top 10,000 when that update went live, however, I'm sure they'd have had the common sense to retire that name a long, long time ago (namely, when the player was confirmed to have died by his sister).

Not just questioned their own faith, but the role that faith has in modern-day society. It's all very good questioning why you might be a Catholic, but that doesn't suddenly make it acceptable to be as misogynistic and homophobic to your work colleagues as the clergy is to their own priests. Likewise, there are religious teachings which still have plenty of relevence in today's world.

That has got to be the best get-out answer I've ever read on OT. Didn't give a direct answer to anything I questioned. Fantastic job.

If you're God-fearing, and you're concerned that your children's lack of belief might lead to them being 'punished' in whatever way, is it then moral to indoctrinate them so they avoid a worse fate? OK, you and I don't believe in Hell or the afterlife, but other people do. How is it immoral to make sure your children have the best chance of going to Heaven? </devilsadvocate>

Then why didn't you just say "It's immoral for parents to indoctrinate their children"? Why did you go one step further by stating that the majority of Christian parents indoctrinate their children?[1] Can't you see that the former is a reasonable opinion, whereas the latter is a totally unsubstantiated 'matter of fact' statement?

Again, shades of Winehouse who was herself booed off at various shows/award ceremonies. It's high-time we properly explored this inexplicable relationship between fame, wealth, and drugs. Until then, we'll carry on losing the incredible talent these two women undeniably had.

That's atrocious. I'm not even sure why the strings are in that intro. They add nothing.

If there's one thing I learned it's why MHers hate the KQ. Given how much it hits, its spawn time and drops are a joke. Great event though. :)

Pick one, and we'll talk. Alternatively, be content in the fact we've discussed all those--or at least most of them--on individual threads.

You're being too simplistic. Just because two sides believe that their own subjective morals justify each of their own reasons for fighting a war (for example), they may still be governed by objective morals which dictate how that war should be fought, and a third party might even use objective or subjective morality to judge the war itself to be unreasonable. Morals are neither completely subjective, nor objective.

But if morality is subjective (your words), why can't both sides feel that whatever cause they're fighting for is justified by their own respective sets of morals? The only way your argument makes sense is if morality is objective, but you said completely the opposite, so it makes no sense at all.

The Evra-Suarez row is an irrelevence. If Liverpool want to carry on paying his wages, then that's up to them, however, we don't have to play Liverpool again until August at the very earliest, and inbetween now and then, United have a Premier League title to win or lose. The focus therefore should be on three points well-earned, and a six month break for this issue to settle down. There are bigger things in this world than Luis Suarez, and it's about time everyone concerned behaved like it.

The less said about metal-core, the better. Actually, after I posted that, I looked at the whole of the top 40 for this week and... good god. I actually quite like pop, I'm not one of these hipsters who thinks that rock is "real music", but I think I only liked about four or five songs on the whole list. On the football, all I can say is this: Welcome to the Sky Sports/talkSPORT era, and welcome to 24/7 rolling sports news. The fact they have to get glorified page 3 models to read the news just to keep the attention of a predominently male audience is telling me even they know it's a painful exercise scraping meat off the bone.

I don't want to describe just how awful this song is, but it's being played on every local commercial radio station I listen to and it's currently #2 on the UK Singles Charts. I'm told it went down pretty well in Canada last year. How people can stand listening to this trash, let alone buy it download a pirated copy of it, is beyond me.

I don't understand this part at all. Are you saying that the grandchildren of racists are in some sort of debt? Should we have a holiday for every time one large group of people wronged another large group of people? That sounds like one ugly calendar. I didn't suggest that grandchildren of Nazis were in any debt. All I said was that the majority of them accept the Holocaust happened, and that it was wrong, and that the grandchildren of those who were on the other side of oppression might want to remember their grandparents in some personal way. If you go back to the, I don't know, third or fourth response on this thread, you'd find I ridicule the idea of Black History Month. I'm not a great fan of special "days" or "months" in general, since there's so many of them now that it loses meaning and diverts focus away from the real social issues we need to be dealing with. But as someone who has studied history, as I'm sure you have as well, I can recognise that black Americans do have a different history than that of their white counterparts, and just like anything else in history, that's nothing to look over, that's something that you embrace and learn from. Let's try taking this issue away from the venomous territory of "race". Do you celebrate American Independence Day? Isn't that the fight of a "large group of people who were wronged by another large group of people"? Perhaps I should suggest that you celebrating your independence is an example of point scoring and doesn't help our two countries work together for the future. If I did that, of course I'd be being wholly ridiculous.

If they're expecting us to spend $$ for a high-end computer, there's plenty of better ways to spend said $$ if you want a gaming experience. For now, RuneScape's just about playable (7-10 FPS more or less, 4-6 in dungeons) so I put up with it because it's only £3.50 a month anyway, which is like... half an hour's wage... for a whole month.