Zierro

My friends and I start like 99% of our sentences with the word "dude".

Blind Melon - Deserted

And what exactly does homosexual marriage "stop" bigots from doing? Honestly, I don't even see how it effects them. If gay marriage being allowed is "forcing bigots to accept something they believe is wrong," then arguing against the majority in this thread is "forcing us to not be satisfied with the outcome of this discussion". You make heated logical debating sound so elementary. Courts, representatives, the people, etc. all debating the issue of homosexual marriage would be an arduous process - nothing like going "POOF" and simplifying everyone's lives in the name of convenience. That would be counting hands you're thinking of. I might not know the logistics behind how TIF officials make board decisions, but I'm inclined to believe, with the presence of intelligence around here, it is more of an open discussion rather than just a poll. (I could be wrong though.) That's how I think controversial issues should be worked out in the government. Basing a system entirely off of what the majority wants is way too shallow (and scary). Should population have a role in the choices our government makes? Absolutely. But it should not be limited to just that. If 55% of Americans don't want gays to marry, the government should take that as a factor to take into account when it comes to the debate. It should not be the final solution to the dispute. It should be weighed in the same way that any other logical point is weighed in: "Hmmm.... 55% of Americans are opposed to it. Heterosexual couples have already violated the sanctity of marriage before. Gay sex has a strong correlation with AIDs. There has yet to be any evidence that you can control your sexual orientation. What should we do?." Like I said, democracies can be good in some ways, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. When it comes to stuff like this, a lot more thought needs to be put into it than a simple hand count. If we used democracy as the only tool of deciding things, then it would be "okay" to gangbang a person without her consent. If it is not the way you like to do it, why don't you choose to be the rebellious minority fighting against the power of the majority by way of trying to educate? Why is it that you only do that when trying to get your point across in the context of giving the majority what they want?

Uhh, what's your point here? My point was that, even though the majority is against you, you are still sticking up for your beliefs and debating it out logically - the exact thing I am arguing for and you are arguing against. In other words, you are contradicting your own beliefs by fighting against the majority and not giving us what we want, which is to convince you to agree with us (since that is the point of debating). Thus, you do not believe in always giving the majority what they want.

You think Jagex just wants you to beat their game in a few months and move onto something better? No no. They intend to keep you here as long as possible. PS: By "beat the game", I meant that in an MMORPG sort of way. I'm aware that there's no official way of "beating" Runescape.

Inside Man - Pretty good. Had a nice ending.

It's two against one, and yet you are still persistently debating with us.... That's the spirit! :thumbsup:

Wristcutters - It was alright. The concept was cool, but the characters didn't have to be so.... uhh. Everybody was like Marla from Fight Club. Reservoir Dogs - I simply thought Pulp Fiction had a lot more to offer. Still a decent film though, especially the opening scene. No Country for Old Men - Very good movie. Loved the symbolism. I'd even go as far as saying it's a new favorite of mine. The Hangover - Fun movie to watch. Enough said.

According to you, that would considered but right because it's what the majority wants, but I disagree. These are exactly the issues that need to be dealt with by logic and reasoning - the amount of people is almost irrelevant. The 5 could argue that they are more beneficial for the advancement of society. The 1 could argue that he worked hard for the bread, whereas the 5 were just being lazy. But no matter what, it shouldn't only come down to numbers. In my eyes, that's the lazy way out of arguing for your ideals. Absolutely not. Sometimes the minority are the ones being unreasonable. My point is that we need to pay more attention to what is being said than how many are saying what. And that's where their "morals" and "logic" should be countered by the other side's morals and logic. I don't even understand where the majority thing is coming from. Couldn't I just as easily say, "The minority should always get what they want,"? The many are sacrificed in service of the few? What makes the majority's needs more important than the minority's in every imaginable context (even when the minority are begging for mercy and the majority are craving sadistic torture)? The most important thing here is that their "suffering" is not on the same level. The child is suffering much worse than the people in the room would "suffer" from not being able to mutilate him. They won't be writhing in pain if they don't get to kill him. The child will though. I would argue the same with gays and bigots. It's more important for gay people to have the right to be happily married than it is for the bigots to feel "comfortable", a word they're just throwing out there since their "logic" is fueled by nothing more than unreasonable hatred. (Of course there are some exceptions, but the majority of anti-gay rights voters only have those ideals because they straight up don't like gays. Not because they're trying to decide what's fair and what's not.) Thus, you think the majority should not always get what they want, so long as it's in breech of your personal strict code of morals. I was trying to appeal to your own sense of morals here. There are some things that mere numbers shouldn't get to decide.

I borrowed my friend's Fallout 3 and I'm already addicted to it. I love 360. <3:

I must say I can't help but squirm when I see gays kissing, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's like picking your nose in my opinion. I might saw "ew" but I'm certainly not going to try to force people not to. As for the sacredness of marriage, the term "marriage" has already been raped by heterosexual couples with all the divorces, domestic abuse problems, and gold-digging. Even after all that, I still don't understand how it effects heterosexual couples if gays were to marry. I agree about the pot though. Marijuana doesn't ruin lives. Imprisoning someone just because they smoke it is ruining lives.

Well, the fact is that some people are more civil than others. I wasn't really trying to comment on the government here. I was just addressing your point about how the majority should always get what the majority wants. So back to that, what you are saying is that if the majority wants something (no matter how stupid) and the minority tries to defend themselves from TRUE exploitation and offensiveness, then the minority are the ones who are in the wrong here? If 4 burglars break into a house and there are 3 residents, does that make it wrong for the residents to defend their property? If a town full of 100 people want to put one "witch" to death, does that make it wrong for her to defend her right to live? Population really holds that much credence? I think democracies can be good when it comes to certain situations (such as what we want our flag to look like or what's for dinner), but something like, "All in favor of seeing this child be mutilated alive, say I!" is over the top. We should look into the morals and logic behind the scenes of the situation rather than appeasing to the biggest crowd on a level that requires absolutely no thought. As a debater, you should favor that notion.

I've been to numerous schools so I had a great opportunity to make many friends. It sucked when I had to leave and then try to make a bunch of new friends from scratch, but somehow I always managed to find new ones.

I'm a fan of the butt.

Are you saying the Salem "witch huntings" were legitimate? Sometimes the few have logic on their side and the majority are a bunch of idiots. I think voting is kind of a lame concept. Let's say we're voting on how to build a rocket. There are scientists who know what they're doing but there are also a bunch of country boys who have never seen computers in their life. Everybody's vote counts as one. I don't think it's far of a stretch to say that a scientist-only rocket would be much better. So I guess my point here is that it's outlandish to put everyone's opinions on par with each other.

For some reason I get bothered when people accidentally touch me but if it's on purpose then I don't care.

Get better at playing bass. Build some muscle in my arms. Try and maintain a better sleeping schedule. Start a savings account. Get a gamerscore of at least 20,000. Give my girlfriend more attention. Try out new types of beer/alcohol. Take more showers. lol

I agree with that completely. I always cry about not having things and when I finally get them I barely feel any different. That's human beings for you though. Want want want.

Seinfeld is pretty good, but I just haven't been into it that much lately. (Probably because I seen every episode a million times.) Right now Malcolm in the Middle, King of Queens, Everybody Hates Chris, and Everybody Loves Raymond are the only things that keep my attention. And I wouldn't exactly call them hilarious. They just give me something to do while babysitting.

The 13th Warrior. I can't remember much about it since I seen it such a long time ago, but I think I thought it was pretty good.

Drumming is really fun, except when the bass pedal comes up. My feet just don't have any rhythm. Probably not the best move since John just announced that he's leaving the band. WTF! :(

Well, since I got a 360 for Christmas, I've been pretty busy. I finished up Portal a few days ago. Very fun and thought-invoking. I'll definitely try the advanced missions out. Right now I'm working on the Half-Life 2's, Tony Hawk's Proving Ground (this game has some ridiculously hard goals), and Call of Duty 3. I've also been working on getting achievements in the Left 4 Dead's.

I've only spent around $300. My dad probably spent over $5000. We had just about every popular console at one point in time, each with a fair sum of games. I also took into account when my dad payed for my RS membership and my brother's WoW.

It really depends on the situation. There should be no confusion about what a word means when it comes to the government. But as for songs and books, the audience enjoys it when you use words flexibly and there is no harm done if somebody misinterprets something.

You're 100 pages too late. :shame: On the topic of confessions: I'm starting to like Everybody Loves Raymond.