Zierro

How exactly are they "unbalancing" Runescape?

I regret buying a BGS and losing 10+ Mil on it. So then you're a game developer?

I agree with Outsanity. I mean, why would Jagex be stupid enough to not make Sailing when there is obviously a big hype about it?

No, he's just very good at making it seem that way. ;) Couldn't agree any more.

Yeah, you're right. My response was mainly aimed at the part where you asked how an infinity of anything can ever be created though. I just misunderstood. Edit: Would making a story with a cliff-hanger ending count as creating an infinite amount of endings? :P Edit2: Nevermind - that would be creating the potential for infinity, not infinity itself.

Well, I might just be talking semantics here but what if you did something to trigger the creation of infinity? For example, throwing a football in outer space. You only throw it once but it can go an infinite distance if it doesn't hit anything along the way. I know that's not "creating" anything but philosophically speaking it's along the same lines.

I look up key terms of the subject I'm studying on the internet, preferably Wikipedia since it has lots and lots of useful information. I find that it's easier for something to stick with me if I take the initiative to personally look it up on my own rather than trying to go by the textbooks or the teacher's notes.

That's funny because I just heard about this today. I think it's a bad idea. Lots of kids have jobs after school and adding time onto the end of the school day will probably either get you fired or make your grades drop. I live in Florida and we've seen so many budget cuts lately. Teachers are losing their jobs, we're losing out on supplies, they make us pay for everything, and the overall sanitation level is disgusting. Agreed. I think I learn more important and useful stuff when actually living my life and not being forced to sit down and "learn" about crap that no one cares about. For God's sake I learned more in my one year of posting on TIF. School can be important but after you get past the basics, it's just about learning redundant and irrelevant crap.

That is equating them though. I'm not suggesting we stop recurring crime in general by taking all criminals out of society. I'm suggesting we stop recurring murder by taking the hardcore premeditated murderers with no morality out of society. It should depend on the case. Yes, but only if the rehabilitation was successful which isn't always the case.

I guess so, but the idea of having stress just because you couldn't get a drink doesn't sound psychologically healthy to me. Also, being bored because you couldn't get a drink doesn't sound nearly as bad. Physically harmful, that is.

I don't get your point then: After releasing any serious offender, whether it be a murderer or a simple car thief, there is always the possibility that they will re-offend. Killing these convicts to ensure that they do not re-offend, however, is not a very reasonable solution to the problem of recidivism. That sounds like you're trying to equate thieves and murderers by saying they have the possibility of committing their crime again, but that doesn't mean we should kill them. Obviously not, when a car thief isn't that much of a threat to society.

Okay... let me try a different approach. Yes, our actions are influenced by our beliefs. Knowing that you can always be wrong about something since you don't have enough evidence to support it is a belief too and your actions (not acting on anything without support) can be influenced by that belief. This is the type of belief that I condone.

I understand your point. It's possible for a situation to exist where a feather kills thousands of people. I'm speaking on a very general level of course though. More often than not, nuclear bombs are dangerous. More often than not, feathers are not. You people are taking my words far too far... I was just commenting on the way he worded it: "In no way is it bad." My point was that there are ways it can be bad. Generally, I don't think it's bad but that's not to say that no negative results come out of it.

Yes, you can. Some things just happen to have more bad effects on society than others. Feathers V.S. Nuclear bombs.

Yes, I've seen it too. But all drinkers who drink for the sole purpose of relieving everyday stress will be going through "withdrawal symptoms" since they will be experiencing that stress without their alcohol. The worst you could say about all partiers is that they'll be bummed out that they didn't get to party. I don't see how this makes them equal in terms of dependency... Besides, I don't know about you, but I never met anyone who binge-drinks every single night anyways.

If you're trying to tell me a thief's crime is just as bad for society as a serial killer's, I disagree.

I guess I'll say it one more time. If there is no support for your belief, then you shouldn't act on it. The actual belief itself is not harmful, just acting on it is. And no, you don't have to act on your unsupported beliefs. I don't get what you're arguing... Are you saying it's impossible to think, "No, I could always be wrong so I won't take the risk of acting on it."?

Well sex has potential to be made into a really bad thing. Some things have more potential than others.

Go for walks to places you never been before and bring friends with you. Not exactly a hobby but it's along the same lines. It might not seem constructive, but walking is actually very good for your soul. :D Loooky

What about rape? Necrophilia? Incest? While I'll agree that sex isn't a bad thing in general, I still think there are ways it can be bad.

I don't understand. How can you bring up communist failures and use it as empirical evidence that communism doesn't work, but at the same time ignore the current state of the economy which is running off capitalism?

We're not talking about killing car thieves. Carjacking isn't nearly as big of a problem as murder. And besides, I thought the only people with the true intention to kill are premeditated murderers? When I talk about keeping people from harming society any further, I'm talking about the murderers with no sense of morality. The deranged murderers who appear to have a very good chance of re-offending if they were ever given the chance. Those are the ones that are an enormous detriment to society. If the idea of the death penalty doesn't stop them, then the actually death penalty itself ultimately will. You call it extremely rare - I call it more than enough. I think this is when we stop to think for what it's all worth. Sure, some people can change for the better. But the same criminals sometimes end back up in prison time after time again. It's a chance. And in the case of a deranged murderer, I don't think society - the people in danger here - would consider taking that chance over someone who is a major threat to them.

Put it that way sure but it doesn't change anything. It's like saying, "What's so wrong about continuing our species?" Besides, you're telling people how they should think. You can't help it if seeing breastfeeding makes you lose your appetite. You can't control that. However, you can control what approach you want to take when feeding your baby.

It doesn't have to be black paper. It just needs to be any dark color.

Allowing your beliefs to influence your actions is inevitable. You are doing it now. It's fine not having a paddle while your boat is idle, but you should have one when you're going upstream. Anyways, my point was that there's no harm in accepting an idea, but don't depend on it for making decisions in life if it doesn't have enough support to back it up. Accept the fact that your belief could always be wrong so you shouldn't take any unnecessary chances. However, if no risk is involved then there is no worry. By saying "rather than" it sounds like you're suggesting he doesn't take any initiative in his life and he leaves it all up to God...