Zierro

What about a cloud of acid or poison?

10066

Really, do you? forever is a long time, my friend. Imagine, being alive, a billion years from now. A trillion? 5 trillion? I would want to live long, like, 400 years would be sweet. But forever? It would have its ups and downs. Your knowledge would expand infinitely and you'd get to experience a ton - think of all the generation transitions and how that would effect you. On the dark side, you would be really crusty and slow.

The first Valentines Day I'll have a valentine. Gettin kinda nervous here guys. :uhh: :oops: :? :anxious: :ohnoes:

I never said it was a good thing. What I did say was that they shouldn't attach the label "Christlike" to an act of firing someone and especially not attach it to a form of competition. That's too extreme of a measure to use when your initial point is just to tell someone they're doing wrong. I could say that politics are not Christlike. Churches taking donations instead of feeding the needy is not Christlike. I don't see the reason to compare someone's bad actions with that of Jesus when 1.) everybody commits wrong-doings, and 2.) almost anything can be considered a wrong-doing. So basically, I don't think labeling something as "not Christlike" is very Christlike. And yes, that very sentence would be considered not Christlike.

Because you had to be bold enough to mention it, yes. I think I will. Bashing on scientists is not in the same vein as bashing someone for being homosexual. Of course you wouldn't find it that offensive. For one, participating in science is a fully conscious choice. Secondly, bringing it up here just doesn't make sense at all, and it seems to me like a very weak attempt at an insult. You were the one who came on the thread and posted that I was in no position to give the opinion that I did and that you were because you had *experience*. (Oh my, the E-word!! :o ) How is this situation anything like that at all? It's fine to give an opinion about your reaction to someone insulting you just because of something you do (even though it doesn't help to get the point across in this context, but still it isn't as bad as it was on the other thread). The problem arose when you pretend like the only and universal truth lies within someone who has experience and that other human beings in a different position than you cannot give opinions. It's not logical - it's conceit. Should I not be allowed to write an essay on war and think it's an immoral act of man even though I've never personally been in one? Should I not be allowed to fight for equal rights of blacks because I'm personally not black? So stop acting a fool and continuing a pitiful flamewar.

so your arguing semantics I take it? Duh. Come on... "Christlike approach to competition"? What the hell is that? I never said the coach shouldn't be punished. Just that the reason which they stated was a bogus one. There is no such thing as a Christlike approach to competition unless you bring up cheating, purposely fouling, and the likes. You know, the more extreme stuff.

Go read some of my posts in the religious threads and you'll see the most recent ones are against atheism. You assume way too much. Quite ironic for someone who claims not to be big on labels. I kept score for basketball games for my community service and watched 8 to 16-year-olds play. Some of which were lost souls too. I didn't feel the need to bring it up until now though, since I guess position in life means everything to you. Maybe now you'll respect my opinion more? You just contradicted your own point. My response to your ninja edit: It's a huge contradiction. If the intent shouldn't be to win, why does the score matter at all? Who cares if you got 0 points?

It doesn't make your claims any more valid either. There is a reason that it is a logical fallacy, and that's because your position has very little or nothing to do with the argument. Hell, we could be on different ends of the spectrum in this argument, but would your position validate your point any further? What if I were a coach and was in the position to make those claims - what would you resort to hiding behind then? We'd both be on the pedestal. So you ignore logical fallacies? I will admit that people throw them around a lot especially on TIF, but my point was that your position has nothing to do with your opinions on the argument at hand. Take out the fact that it's a logical fallacy if you want, but it's still an illogical approach. And plus, you were the first to engage in poisoning the well by saying we don't have any experience, therefore our opinions are invalid. I have no idea?? There you go again, assuming that you've seen and know everything the world has to offer and the person you're talking to is completely ignorant. I've seen my fair share of lost souls too. Trust me. Agreed. The thing I don't agree on is that the coach was exhibiting a non Christlike approach to competition. Does that even exist, or is it just a term used to get exactly what you want in the Christian world? I'd say the latter. Goodness, you hurt my feelings by saying I am not in a position to give the opinions I've gave, Barihawk! Is that a Christlike approach to competition? I like how you said we should put glory aside... That goes both ways. If we shouldn't care about the glory of the team with the score of 100, why should we care about the glory of the team with 0? He praised his own team for their honor and integrity yet you say he's not setting an example? You act like he went on the court and murdered the other kids. No. He was coaching his kids which is part of the sporting experience. And if the other team got discouraged the first time, they will learn from their mistakes and try harder. If anything they learned a very valuable life lesson that hard work is compensated with victory and success. Yet, he's not setting a good example... :roll: Plus, if they were up by about 30 I think it's obvious that they weren't playing to win but to test their limits and endurance instead - maybe with the goal of playing a nearly perfect game. (100-0) If you give the other team a handicap, you're taking away from the fun of the other team. What if the kids had a dream of a 100-0 score? That is a pretty great achievement that would make any team happy, and they worked for it!! It's a two-way street. Your answer is no, making their reason for firing him hypocritical. Maybe he did deserve to be fired, but not for the reason which they stated.

10099

Don't lie and tell me that you're sorry. You always just happen to bring up how you're a teacher. I barely even seen any of your posts, but still from what I've seen you always seem to mention it. That doesn't put you on a pedestal Barihawk. I know what appeal to authority is, so I'm in the position to claim that every post you make that has boasting in it is nothing but crap. And that's just the way it is. Not very fair logic, huh? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html You have a degree in education and you don't even know what is meant by fair play? Wow... This is exactly why that is a logical fallacy. First of all, it means that as long as you are not infringing upon the set rules, then it is fair play. I give you thefreedictionary: Fair play: Conformity to established rules. Is there an established rule that states the other team must hold back in order to raise the self-esteem of the rivaling team? Second of all, I don't think you understand what competition is. Again, I give you thefreedictionary: Compete: To strive against another or others to attain a goal, such as an advantage or a victory. Anything in there about holding back? No, actually I think the word "strive" implies the contrary. Did you also see the word "against"? Like I said, they could have used a much better word for the reason behind firing the guy. Competition was the wrong word to use. Again I ask you:

Do you really have to boast about what position you're in to make a certain claim every single time you give your opinions? That's appeal to authority and it's very getting annoying. I don't have to be a coach or athlete to look up the real definition of the word "competition", do I? Maybe if they would have used a different word it would have been justified, but competition implies nothing about holding back just to raise the self-esteem of the other team. Now I ask you: Does firing someone for a reason like that reflect a Christlike and honorable approach to administration? It's a yes or no question.

Dream Theater, Opeth, and Dragonforce. They do absolutely nothing for me. I don't see anything magical about their music.

What a contradiction. Someone clearly does not know what competition is. And firing someone for a ridiculous reason like that does not reflect a "Christlike and honorable approach to administration", does it?

Like, really. I'd rather get paid fairly than have people open doors for me to be honest. And when did someone say that the pay is the only argument for feminism?

What "lack of ability"? Everyone has the ability to express whatever opinion they want, no matter how wrong the majority of people see it. So what if there's a popular view on many topics? That's almost inevitable. To tell you the truth I'm sick of the victim mentality I hear wherever an opinion is put down (it mightn't necessarily be you, but I've definitely seen it with others). I'll disagree strongly with Lep1423 saying "scientists are all morons", but I'm not going to go on a tirade pretending I'm being victimised. I'm going to call that a stupid statement and move on with my life. He definitely could have at least put it in more eloquent terms to prevent anyone from being offended. You have to admit, this is very a touchy subject for some.

We can't have absolute gender equality because the two genders will always differentiate. Just like how age groups have their differences so they are treated differently (alcohol age, driving age, etc.). That being said, I still think we have some more room for improvement. For example, women should get the same pay as men.

You summed up my opinion on it pretty well. There are two possibilities: everything happens for a reason or everything happens for no reason. The first is much easier for me to believe.

10106

10140

So you're telling me that Jagex made that rule up for no particular reason whatsoever?

I don't understand it either. I thought I liked it too for a long while, but life is too short to be spending it just to train on RS, in my opinion at least. To each his own, but training on RS just isn't my thing anymore.

Ahh, bananas are machines eh? They do have two parts: peel and the fruit inside. Together, they can also perform work by helping you slide across the floor faster.

Because the estate is entitled to his grandson - not his nephew. Edit: Legos beat me to it. :cry:

What makes you think that the trouble religion causes greatly overshadows the good it causes? I would agree that religion doesn't have much of an overall benefit off the basis that non-religious people can be just as efficient and righteous as a religious one, but you have said that it is a cause of trouble. I don't think the trouble necessarily stems from religion - but the divisions of man. There has been slavery, segregation, and many other problems caused by race, gender, and nationality but would you blame the divisions for the problems or would you blame it on the people who are intolerant about the divisions?