dutchdreams

it is human nature to hate, envy, and want to hurt others that hurt you. Human nature is not greater then human conscience, human conscience>human nature. not very appropriate for a family forum. Human conscience is part of human nature, or part of being human. Valueing one over the other is belittling and denying the other. You drag in hate and envy while the subject was 'lust': you name those two and conclude that conscience > nature (in every circumstance). Your conscience is fed with the concept that 'lust' is bad (even though it's part of human sexuality and hence associated with procreation). You carry the burden of the original sin with you: the woman as the evil temptress. It is your choice to follow that path and to base part of your conscience on that belief, not mine. You are imprisoned by your personal conscience when you recognise 'lust feelings' invoked by the media and as a result feel guilty about having them. I don't recognise having those feelings as bad, therefore I'm not 'imprisoned' by them. Could it be, that your conscience is wrong on the subject of 'lust' ? Not according to you, but according to my conscience, yours is. It is therefore, that I'm against strict censorhip, because I don't want others conscience to tell ME or my kid, what I should percieve wrong/right/bad/good. Nor do I want to be in a position to decide what's good for others. I'll make my own judgement based on the values that have been given to me in the past through various ways, including religion. I trust others to do the same on their values/beliefs, without me having to resort to shoving my beliefs down their throats. Likewise, I trust others to do the same and not shove their beliefs down my throat. To the picture: it's a magazine subscription to some girly magazine, no nudity showing on the cover, just girls in halter tops you can come across on every beach (even though overhere, we have topless beaches). This 'family forum' is specifically geared to a game that involves thieving as a skill, deals with player killing, rewards you for slaying beasts and animals, has a community filled with bad mouthed kids that are after your stuff by any means possible including lieing and cheating, a game that involves a quest around cannibalism or hints towards it, a game that involves lieing and tricking NPCs on a regular basis in quests, trolls that eat humans, duels to the death for loot (I'll leave the worshipping of false gods out of it).........All this, every time the kid presses the start button. Yet you choose to gripe over an add. One that nobody will notice unless attention is focussed to it (good job on that by the way). By pasting the add into this topic, it probably got more views than where it was originally shown. You have demonstrated how much a captive you are by the media, by feeling the urge to paste the add into your post. You are now infact, actively parttaking in exposing others to it: since by posting it in the topic, addblockers won't pick it up. Ironic that you need someone else to point that out to you, don't you agree ? Was that your human nature or your conscience (since you're so keen on seperating the two), that made you make the decision to paste the add into your post ? Not exactly a game I would let my child play should I be overly concerned about how his conscience is developing. As a result, the kid would have no business on this forum and hence not be exposed to it. On a side note, it's safe to assume you play RS or played it in the past for some time (why else would you be here ?). You were exposed to all, that I mentioned inside the game: you must've had quite some conflict with your conscience on a personal level. Or were you able to step back and realise it's only a game ?

They always taught me, out of respect for His awesome being, He or His name should be capitalised. Anyways, I've always found the Hammurabi codex a pretty interesting relic from the past. It's a stone tablet from a Babylonian (Mesopotamia) king, dating back to around 1800 BC which is reputed to have a big influence on Mosaian law (10 commandments, ca 1200 BC). The codex already described subjects such as murder/manslaughter/theft/marital rights to name a few.

really? let me think, theres like 100000 laws in the united states that all just enforce 10 things. know what they are? the ten commandments. id say that if everyone followed them the world would be BETTER not worse? I sure hope you're not insinuating law started with Christianity.

Who's imprisoned here ? The one feeling 'lust' and recognising and handling it as part of human nature. Or the one having to feel guilty of it because of his beliefs ? I know the answer to that one myself. Please don't get me started on how certain religions belittle women in general and keep them imprisoned (litterally) and have had a long history of denying them their humanitarian rights.

Answer provided in my last post. Now answer mine.

The discussion aside if a different world would be smart, don't you think we should leave the German world to the Germans as it was pretty much intended by Jagex ?

Would she consider a 30 year old parent playing a game with his/her 12 year old child creepy too ? Oh, wait, I think I can guess her answer to that one: 'but that's *different* ;)

ah I see and what is this snippet of another post by you in this thread then ? Think out side of the box. If a child is being exposed to parents who do drugs, sex, alcohol in the home around the child, that child will be taken away by social workers. Now if the child is being exposed to the same things in the media, our right of "freedom of speech" keeps the child in an exposed environment. You wanted to wake up one day on your 18th birthday and find out the world isn't the happy place your parents depicted it, good for you. Trust the other adults to have a different point of view and prepare their children a different way for the world out there. Let's look at what would be considered detrimental to the child. You consider drugs/sex/alcohol exposure through media as bad. I don't happen to think so. I have a different point of view. Let's go hypothetical, shall we ? After all, the case you present of media exposure and psychological damage is hypothetical as well. [hypothetical] What if I happen to think religion is actually the root of all evil: it has created bloody wars in the past. I see it as the instigator for a lot of sorrows to people on the world we live in today. It keeps humanity back as a whole through the morals it presents on medical research. I see it as a weapon for one religion to fight wars over the other for superiority. As a result, I may want to keep my child away from anything to do with religion. I don't want it exposed to what I consider, religious lies, hypocrisy and attrocities committed in the name of religion. I don't want it exposed to any form of religious depiction through the media. I do my best to keep my child out of churches, I take a detour when near a place of worship. I do my best to keep my child's exposure to a minimum. However, I can't watch my child all the time, so I would like to see all those sermons televised on Sunday be taken off the television: I consider them detrimental to my child after all. I want all the religious channels gone. I want everything on the internet containing a reference to an upper being *gone*. I want it to be able to open up a newspaper without it being exposed to highly religious obituaries. I consider all media exposing my child to any religious content as 'bad'. It's out of control: everywhere I look I see some form of religious content. Government, please censor the media, so my child isn't exposed to it. I feel I have been needlessly exposed to religion in my childhood, as a result I would like my children not having to suffer from it through their childhood. [/end hypothetical case] Now please tell me why, what you percieve as bad should be censored and what I presented in my hypothetical case *shouldn't* be censored. What gives you the idea that anyones views on that team of psychologists are 'right' and my hypothetical ones aren't ? What gives you the idea that I as a parent would want someone else to decide what is good/bad content for my child ? You want a team of 'experts' decide on what's good and what's bad. The opinions of these experts will be biased by their own beliefs and heritage. Not only that, the appointment of these experts will become a political affair and thus subject to change (comparable to the appointment of high court judges). There are already enough measures keeping exposure to 'smutt' within limits in my country, no extra censorship is needed.

Wrong, it is the parent's privilege to watch over the child's well-being, abuse of this turns responsibility over to the state. I have already confirmed this with the post explaining how social workers can take away children from parents who aren't watching out for the child's well-being. And the decision on what's good for the child resides with the parent as their privillige. What you deem wrong for your child doesn't necesarily mean I would consider it wrong for MY child as well. You propose the state deciding for everyone what's good for everybody's children: how much state-intervention in a human's personal life do you want before you start calling it a totalitarian regime ? By the way, asking in your topic title for other countries' point of views, than bluntly telling someone being 'wrong' for presenting a different view than yours, is rather self-righteous. What if the parent isn't concerned? What if I don't see the parent's distinterest as my concern ? I'm not talking beliefs, I'm talking harmful psychological effects on children through the media. I'm not saying all media is having negative effects on children but you have to be very ignorant to say that all media has positive psychological effects. I don't say all media have positive effects, if that was aimed at me, because I don't see me mentioning media in that quote even. Do you want to censor kids in the neigbourhood/playmates/classmates as well ? These make up a big part in the child's everyday life as well, don't you agree ? It's the parents responsibility to provide the kid with a benchmark on what's wrong or right, by conveying their beliefs (be it religious beliefs or not) to that child. Think out side of the box. If a child is being exposed to parents who do drugs, sex, alcohol in the home around the child, that child will be taken away by social workers. Now if the child is being exposed to the same things in the media, our right of "freedom of speech" keeps the child in an exposed environment. Imagine that, the media being a representation of the bigger world the kid lives in. It's TV/computer exposure, while the kid is living in a normal stable family. Do you really think, that kid cannot differentiate between the two ? It's the parent's responsibility to tell the child drugs are bad for you when it's televised, alchohol taken moderately and sex in the privacy of a bedroom. It's not the state's responsibility to act these things don't exist by muting the media.

As with a lot of things, it's a matter of choice. The TV has an on/off switch, so does the computer. It's the parents' responsibility to watch over the child's wellbeing: not the state's. The frowned upon content on TV isn't usually broadcasted until after a specific time. It's the parents job to get their kids to bed before that :P There are contentblockers available for internet. Still concerned about what your child does on the net ? Sit with her/him rather than seeing the computer as a substitute nanny. Tell your beliefs (be them religious or not) on life's issues before your child goes looking for answers on him/herself. Don't rely on others doing it for you through censorship. A parallel between child abuse and being exposed to harmful content I have never heard of. However, I can think of examples of damaged childhoods of people with stricly religious families. Having to hide or not act on natural urges, just because you are forecasted hell and oblivion has a great impact on a blossoming young adult. Surpressing urges with the original sin in the back of your mind can lead to some serious psychological damage. Censoring will not make the urges go away. People cannot deny their human nature. In my opinion, filling a child's mind with feelings of guilt, feelings of failure, anxiety for an eternal life in hell, creates a more fertile soil for psychological damage than not censoring 'the smutt'.

I always take the official forums with a grain of salt, especially the rants. A lot of times these rants will be about lacking high level content and the player quitting because of it. Then, if you keep track of their highscores, you notice a steady increase in their total xp over the course of a week >.> A bit hypocritical. I find that attitude ('I want high level content NOW, else I quit') wrong in one way, yet understandable in another. Runescape is a completely open-ended game. Whatever your level is, whatever your path is, there is *always* something to do. It's entertainment the player can create for himself. Jagex provides the means for it, it's the player's discretion how to use it. My point would be, don't depend on Jagex to make fun for you, but rely on yourself to have fun. If you find yourself bored in the game, because the activities don't appeal to you anymore (fishing/woodcutting/DK'ing/PK'ing/[insert activity]) then it's time to have a look at yourself. Rather than demanding Jagex for stuff that will keep you interested, ask yourself why at a certain age you stopped playing with Lego or dolls. Jagex has to walk a thin line. For example, when they release the 'mother of all quests' today, all quests thereafter will be measured and compared to this particular quest. A lot of content added afterwards, will pale in comparison. As a result, it will add to the growing feeling that Jagex doesn't care for high-levels. There is also a threshold on items: bigger, better, more expensive, more damage on weapons, more defense on armor. There are weapons around that can already split other players in half. What more do people expect ? To be able to one hit a 99 HP-player ? Now what I find understandable in the attitude of wanting high-level content. People have invested time and effort into bettering their character. It's human nature to expect rewards for your effort (why else do it ?): I doubt anyone would go to university to settle for a job as a garbagetruck-driver. After spending that effort, it's nice to see it rewarded with items/content that's only available to you. Things that make you stand out for having done that effort. These players have been loyal to the game for years and feel left in the cold by the recent updates geared towards 'lower levels'. There is one thing Jagex can never change though and that's mankind's search for new kicks. Translated to Runescape: one can only kill the KBD, KQ or DK so many times before it becomes repetitious/boring. One can only do a quest once. One can only mine so many runite or get a certain number of whip drops/barrow items before it becomes 'business as usual'. One can only merchant so many goods, before the kick of getting a good deal ebbs away. I'm sure a lot of high-level players will recognise a certain desire every now and then, to be completely oblivious again and explore Runescape as if it were their first day. When everything was new and every option was still available to you. The been-there, done-that- mentality that is within each of us, will eventually get to all of us. Unless you are the number one player and are going for 1 bill total xp ;). This desire often results in players creating a 'noob'-character or a pure. Or it results to a yearning to the good ol' days, when everything and everyone was better/nicer. Congratulations, you made it to the end of my essay :P My personal opinion is that I'm still very eager with all the stuff that's available to any level. Then again, I'm going for a total level of 2200: only 99 levels to go ;) Dutch, 2101 total level, 200 mill xp, 126 combat.

Rares: 1, but gave away a green mask a month ago. Capes: 8, soon to be 10 with pray and fishing at 98.

This being the pendant that I use for skilling, I have lost it several times. You talk to Lucien for a replacement. The dark dagger is unobtainable after legends is complete. Hmmm, k, I'll go check it out. Edit: yep, got it back. I tried at Varrock after finishing quest, never thought of going back to him in Ardy -.-

Yanille for me: Varrock has too many people wanting to know if I'm smithing rune and/or begging me to make them a free rune set (90 smithing, go figure).

Lucien's pendant is not obtainable after the quest. Temple of Ikov if memory serves me, its been over two years since I did it. I still hate myself for dropping it, because let's face it: Lucien is a very cool name ;)

Not too shabby, 62 WPM with 98% accuracy :

I'd pick a skill that I don't like to level, such as agility or thieving. Simply because I know I'll get to 99 eventually in the ones that I enjoy doing :P

Buy a few candy bars in the supermarket, sell to your friends in your school for a little profit. Be sure to sell below the vendor machine price ;). With the profit, buy some more bars. Expand your clientele till you have cornered the candy bar market inside your school. Merchanting in real life.....who said Runescape had no educational value ?

I had a lesser demon challenge: I got it when I was on a slayer task.

A rather inappropriate comparison if you ask me, considering a rock is an inate object. A better comparison would be an infertile couple, considering you seem to judge someones contribution to society solely based on their ability to procreate. Why shouldn't gay couples be recognised by the government ? They are humans, they bleed like you do, they talk, they walk, they think, they love, they hate, etc... The government is a representation of the people in a country, sworn to protect those people. By law, everybody is equal. I'm not familiar with the American constitution in details, but I'm pretty sure there will be some statement in it, saying that there is a seperation between church and state. The only grounds not to give homosexuals equal rights would be based upon religious beliefs or derivatives of them. Not being able to procreate being a crime against humanity, is induced by faith that every sexual act should be geared towards procreation. A religious belief, as a ground to withhold other human beings happiness, rights and status in society ? That would be against the seperation of state and church. So yes, you are wrong in thinking the government shouldn't recognise them. I'm glad you agree sometimes personal business doesn't have a place in society. Religion is the summit of personal business. It's a choice you, as a human being make, over others. It's a personal choice to follow those beliefs, that give you a sense of superiority over others. It can't get more personal than that. As a result it should not find its way into legislation/government/society, but remain in places of worship: churches and temples.

I'd say Jagex' reasoning on this is valid: it's costing them money through bandwith usage. No company will allow unnecesarry cost to run rampant. People thinking it won't hurt Jagex if a third party client hides advertisements have to consider one thing. Advertisers pay for exposure to an audience. The amount of cash advertisers are willing to pay depends on the number of people that actually get to see the ads. E.g. compare the advertising rate during a superbowl game to that of a televised women's soccer game (no offence to all the female soccer players reading this :P ). Jagex can very well say that they have a player base of 9 million accounts. However, if the advertiser gets word of how easily the ad-viewing is circumvented by third party clients (therefore effectively cutting down on the ad-exposure), the rate the advertiser is willing to pay to Jagex will drop. Or the other way around: Jagex cannot claim all of their player base gets to see the ads, as long as those third party clients have a way around them. It affects Jagex' marketing position/strategy as to what they have to offer to potential advertisers. Hm, I didn't mean to write an essay. The seperate client downloadable from their homepage is pretty good too. Only problem I've noticed in the two years I've used it, is that it crashes every now and then (sporadically).

Well, I can't really blame the people for thinking that, since Jagex has this written on their homepage: It's only a factor in Jagex' decision obviously, but a sure way to attract Jagex' attention.

How is that luring ? That's a PK of an overconfident player who already is inside the wilderness. No. Nobody asks or deserves to have his/her integrity violated by worthless bums who are too lazy to make money themselves, period. It's a lousy thing to do to anyone, also to people you don't know. You deliberatly spoil the game fun of others for your own gain (yes, I know you don't care). Not only by taking those items from them, but more so by messing up their legit attempt at a good drop. If it's just a game or just pixel items, why spend all that trouble getting your hands on those items, spoiling others fun ? I'm sure if it were just a game to you, you would have no problem having fun in different ways. And if that is no fun, then there are other games you can play. If it's just a game, it should make no difference to you being dirt poor or filthy rich. If it's just a game, it shouldn't matter to you what other players are wielding/wearing/banking. Jealous on other people's items/cash ? Want to have them as well, with least effort spent ? Want to have a rich bank ? Or heaven forbid, do you want to gain 'respect'/status amongst the community (seek help if you answered yes) ? Bit weird, don't you think, considering you claim it's just a game to you. Get your account banned, it would do 'you a good thing'.

I have very good experiences with people in the fish guild: they are actually some of the nicest around compared to the people that walk around in other areas. I guess it heavily depends on what world you play in. Catherby by default is bad: it's either about skewed one sided political views, zezima bashing or some random pee/poo jokes, coupled with the occasional auto-er and chat spammer. Oh and of course the 'fishing sucks'-whiners.

A lot of times in Pk'ing arguments, a Pk'er will come up with : 'there are no rules in the wilderness, live with it' (specially on RC-pk'ing or people doing clues getting killed, tellying/praying in wildy). Any Pk'er now appealing to a certain code of honour or (unwritten) rules of engagement, shoots the whole pk'ing community in the foot. As if the person eating, is somehow going against a rule. I thought there were no rules in the wilderness by default ? If there's such a code of honour, why attack unarmed players ? If there's such a code of honour, why badmouth people ? If there's such a code of honour, why tagteam people inside single wildy ? PJ'ers ? Multizone luring ? I guess it should be changed into 'there are no rules in the wilderness, as long as it's in the pk'ers interest' The whole idea that it's in any way bad to use food for its designated purpose in the game (prolonging your life/fight or a chance to escape) is laughable to say the least. To single out 'safing', as something bad to do, is ludicrous. There are no rules in wilderness, pk'ers live with it. Either you adapt or die.