Zierro

Well, at least it's somewhat better than the witch-hunting days. :lol: I still think it's crap though. OJ Simpson...

1. He's a kid. 2. He didn't murder anyone.

Hmm, was that parenthesis necessary? He said that TalkOrigins is biased against religion when they only argue against creationism. Creationism is one aspect of one religion, not all of religion. He didn't specify, so I took him to task on it. And to saru, perhaps you just worded your original post incorrectly, and I'll forgive you for that, but in no way do I take "the site itself [TalkOrigins] IS bias against Religion" to mean that the site merely "has to do with" religion. Still, it has nothing to do with all religion, only one interpretation of one religion's creation story. Added, I'm not going to go back through the pages of this thread to make your argument for you. If you want to present a fact like I asked, by all means do so and we'll argue it. If not, fine. I really don't mind either way. I would just expect you, if so adamant that creationism is scientifically supportable, to remember one fact which backs it up. I'm confused now. Which religions don't have a story of their deity/deities creating the world? I thought that the basis of any religion was that something greater than humans put us here.

If it's not on the internet then NOOOOO.

I would Runecraft for a very long time. \

I totally agree. And to Zierro Try naming other items than red chins I won't argue about Jagex' ability to make things fun and interesting, but why don't they take a skill that at least SOUNDS fun (unlike sailing) and make that a fun and interesting skill? Dude, all you are arguing is that those skills suck in your opinion. Well, guess what? I can do the same exact thing. Watch me - Hunter doesn't suck. I mean at least bring up something new other than your dissatisfaction - which differs from person to person. My point is that Jagex can make a skill fun, interesting, and useful. Are you seriously arguing that they don't have the ability to update their own game?

So we're talking about what is realistic and what isn't? This is coming from someone who thinks they can stop the demand of guns just from promoting anti-violence. Pens are much different from guns than knives are. I think bringing up pens is pretty lame since it's obvious criminals would have easy access to something much more efficient than that. If guns were gone, people would be using things that are still pretty lethal like pipes, bats, knives, etc. not pens. :roll: That is because people were ignorant about the consequences of what cigs could do to your health. The anti-tobacco campaigns scared people by letting them now how much of a detriment to your health it is. I don't see how that would apply to guns. Criminals already know the consequences for gun use - incarceration obviously. You don't need campaigns to point that out. Yeah because correlation always implies causation, right? And have you not seen Danger's link? Statistics work in both of our favors. So you agree that they will use more effort now, but you are arguing that they won't be successful 100% of the time? Well, sometimes guns don't ensure the victim's death either. You can miss, run out of bullets, it can jam, you can drop it, they can escape, then can fight back, etc. etc. That still doesn't suggest that people don't need self-defense.

"The right context" can mean anything. You lost me there. Yeah things got pretty confusing for some reason. My point is that "okay" is a pretty loose term. In the right situation, anything can be considered okay. Lying is a prime example of this. Sometimes it is okay to lie and sometimes it isn't.

"The right context" can mean anything.

Provide me a set of events where child molestation has benefits. This situation should be plausible, not filled with nonsense. Please read my posts in this thread. Please try again? I don't see your story becoming a reality in this millennium. Okay, you didn't read my posts, you read a post, try again. [/hide] Again, there is no situation you present. You simply say that just by adding the words "Benefits of ___" makes it have some sort of benefit to society or to the abused. Unrealistic scenarios are included in the word "anything". Maybe you should look the term up.

No - more experienced. It was right next to "stronger"... You honestly never heard of Red Chins? Wow man... Yeah, use the worst items as a representation of the whole skill. Now to make things more fair, I'll use the best: red chins. You're telling me about your dissatisfaction with the skill - I'm talking about the ability to make a skill have a point. There is a big difference. Again, this has nothing to do with the fact that Jagex has the ability to make a skill fun and useful.

Do you know what "the right context" could mean?

I'm a good combo of being facetious and innovative, with a hint of self-discipline. No, I am!!

Over-thinking always makes things somehow more depressing for me. I don't even know why. Maybe we all just have different positive/negative equilibriums.

Not anything. I wouldn't say rape is ok. :| If you were forced to either rape someone or kill someone, which sounds more "okay"? Allow me to rephrase myself to clarify my point: The context changes everything.

In the right context, anything could be considered okay.

You argue that you want to prevent deaths. So by what you're going by, why not take away knives, drugs, and cars too? Do I need to bring up the statistics about how many people die from those compared to guns? You're agreeing that guns will easily be substituted with knives? Well that's not really fixing anything if you ask me... This goes back to my earlier point. Even if they are not as efficient, if the intentions are the same, then they can just as easily become as efficient. Like I said, murder was a commonplace forever. Taking guns out of the equation probably isn't going to help as much as you think. Whether it outweighs the benefits or not is only your subjective opinion. In my opinion, there is no reason to give up your own security. Yes, but that's if it were "proper" - but that's only possible in this imaginative world you keep bringing up. I wish. Some people are bad. Some people want money. Now just add America in (while we're in a bad economic situation, at that) - and you got yourself one good reason to want to protect yourself. ;) Yes, there is a general intent. I wasn't talking about the specific intent. The general intent of owning and loading a gun is to kill someone - the general intent of using a replacement for a gun would obviously be to kill someone, so why would you not exert more effort? Even in a fit of rage, someone using a gun would hardly be any different than someone using a knife. They would both want to use their weapon successfully. The only exceptions would be accidental deaths. Not good at all. That's giving a few bad people more power than the general population - including all the good people since you aim to make guns an unnecessary means of self-defense.

I've noticed something about this... On the internet, when you take the time to think about all your opinions logically before posting, homosexuality doesn't seem wrong at all. However, in real life, I tend to be pretty uncomfortable around gay people. :lol:

I agree with Barihawk. It's pure ignorance to think that his kid isn't going to go through a lot of crap in his life just because of the name. Now, if he named himself that then I don't see a problem.

If my thirst for vengeance was that prodigious then I guess so.

I turned 18 today! It's weird... I feel so immature for an adult. :lol:

He argued with you over that?

Careful now, you're being a target for empirical-hungry-atheists. 8-) No, but on a serious note I'd have to agree with that. Some might consider that as living a delusion but if you ask me, that doesn't work against you. Nobody is perfect, and for all we know we might all be living in our delusional worlds. After all, "sure" is such a powerful word... By that do you mean they are opposite or similar? If you are saying they are opposite then I agree. Just imagine trying to 'code' someone's ego. It would be impossible because there are infinite possibilities.

Hmm, was that parenthesis necessary?

There should be a rule stating people can't ask dumb questions. Even reworded, this is still the whole "Can God create a rock so big He can't move it" argument, which is nonsensical, to put it mildly. It's like asking if you can be taller than yourself or if a circle can be a square. No matter how silly it sounds, I think his point still stands. You can't be taller than yourself and a circle can't be a square. Nothing can change that - and "nothing" includes the word "omnipotence". Omnipotence is just an imaginary term.