Barihawk

I mean this not to be provocative, Im just curious to know your view point. You know that some religious fundamentalist are so deluded that they actually believe they are in a battle between good and evil. Religion is what motivates people to blow themselves up, because they believe they will be met by virgins in heaven (spare a thought for them!) Unfortunately, religion is motivating people to do terrible things. Certainly it could be said that there are terrorists who are not motivated by religious morals, sadly it is so, that the majority are. Actually, I'd say that the mast majority of terrorists are motivated by greed, mostly monetary. You are lumping all terrorists into Jihadists when that is simply not true. Even in that case, the leaders are making craptons of money for their own benefits at the cost of using people to go blow themselves up. Terrorism is about using terror to achieve a goal. It's been around for a very long time. But nobody discusses the IRA, Ulster, the Basques, Libyan Nationalist Front, Khmer Rouge, Vietcong, or other groups because after 9/11 the concept of terrorist shifted from that of an educated, trained, and armed mercenary into a misguided religious zealot with a bomb on his chest. The true terrorists are those in power who use fear to manipulate events. Abdul the farmboy with a C4 waistcoat is not a terrorist. As far as the real terrorists are concerned he's just a human bomb and just as manipulatable as an inert non-living hunk of metal. Just certainly more useful. There is no "majority" of religious terrorists. They've simply stolen the limelight away from other groups that have operated for the last hundred years. This man is blessed with a brain and the ability to use it. Most people have to trade one for the other.

There is a mercy rule in basketball, but it's 60-0 at the half. At least in UIL (Texas league of high school competition). 59-0 should have been called by the referees, for God's sake.

See, that's a great quote because it's much more educated and explains itself in itself. It comes across as being intellectual and educated. Not to mention, it's not all that much an insult against religion as it is the truth. I've been trying to stay out of this uneducated inexperienced hogwash that this forum presents as "scientific discussion" but some of the turds of a post in this thread required me to step in. I'm sorry if that makes me sound arrogant, but as a scientist and quite frankly in the top 6% of educated Americans I feel I need to step in and start some fun discussion. At the very least give some harsh lessons in reality. :P

Religion stands as a natural order, a defense against lawlessness and the state of nature. I should point out a few fallacies in this thread. I. Terrorists For one I think it's a shame that the word terrorist has been redefined after 9/11 into meaning simply an extreme religious fanatic. Terrorists have plagued the world for hundreds of years for multitudes of reasons, religion ONLY coming into the spotlight after September 11th. The IRA crisis does not truly represent a religious crusade, it is a political conflict that attempts rather poorly to use religion as a justification for violence. If there was no religion, there would likely be no government. Period. Without a binding force (note that I am even including shamanistic local religions here) such as religion, people would not feel a basic unity to come together and create a government. We would exist in what philosophers called "state of nature" in which is pure basic anarchy. Humans could not even go to bed at night for fear of their throat being slit and their possessions being stolen. Hobbes would even go so far to say in today's world that terror and fear are part of human nature. II. Violence I'm really sick of people bringing up the Crusades as a treatise against religion, Christianity in particular. Every major power has had corrupt individuals doing stupid things in the name of a higher force, and the Catholic Church got used like Al-Queda is using Islam today. The Crusades started a process that led to the Reformation and created a great number of sects in Christianity, all of which (including the Catholic Church) have rules and checks in place to prevent a disaster such as the Crusades from ever happening. The various Christian organizations are held accountable not only by their rules, other Christians, but their own people who are now educated to the point that they can think rationally (even if but a little). As for Al-Queda, this is a purely political force using the less educated to do it's will. How about instead of telling these people they have no God, you spend time trying to convince them that what they do is an affront to their God. I think that would be more effective, particularly. Smart words. Ethics->Mores->Laws. I assume this is directed at Christianity/Judaism, in which case you are wrong. Look up the practice of theology. Christianity, at least, is a breathing practice that does adapt itself to the times and to recent scientific study of both itself, other religions, and the world God created for it. While certain truths in the Bible are set in stone, the interpretation of the Bible is constantly changing. That's why you have extremely conservative Christians, and extremely liberal Christians. And a VAST MAJORITY in between. The problem I find in debates like this is the incorrect stereotype that all Christians are backwards uneducated far-right-wing hillbillies who go out on gay lynchings and attend Westboro Baptist Church. It's very incorrect stereotyping. Most organized Christian organizations (say the Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc) have dedicated theologians and scholars constantly researching, studying, and debating on how religion of all kinds fits into the world. I'd suggest you try to find a theological school near you and see if they have any open conferences coming up. Go there for a day and you will learn more about all religion than in a lifetime. See "state of nature" above. Again, at least in this sentence you are wise beyond your years. Again, Religion is not set in stone. Unless you follow Al-Queda in which case you are not following a religious order but just a sheep behind an educated nationalistic shepard. In this statement you not only use the far-right stereotype of Christians, but of Republicans as well. I am quite moderate but still call myself a Republican. It's not like we go out and pray in front of effigies of George W. Bush every night, you know. Nearly every philosopher of the last thousand years calls BS on this sentence. Hence the need for government, or at least at the lowest levels, religion. See the last quotation in my signature, I agree with you. I'm thinking that you mean Amish or a similar sect, but I assure you that they are hardly "secluded." While they are raised to ignore technology as it is a corrupting influence against hard work and promotes laze. "Idle hands are Lucifer's workshop" is the saying. The Amish are not fearful of technology nor do they consider it a sin. They just prefer not to use it. Their theology also changes and more than a few attend national religious conferences. Also, they are hardly backwards. Visit an amish town and you will find houses that look like suburban America. The only difference being they have no electricity and were built purely by hand. That's the only difference. Inside it will look just like your house, if not nicer. So they use kerosene lamps instead of light bulbs. It's also worth mentioning they operate higher educational opportunities by hiring professors (who can drive their cars right to the school) from other universities to come in and teach their children. A process that has been happening since the Reformation. Does this mean conservative religion will die? No. It just means that eventually it will adapt and catch up. It is good to have multiple forms of religion as they create "competition" much like capitalism. If you don't adapt you die. It makes for religions to analyze themselves and see how they can improve instead of holding the monopoly of the old Catholic Church. This saddens me. I am a devout Christian yet I am also actually well versed in all forms of science. And it shocks me that you say that not even knowing what science is. You equate it to simply physics and chemistry, or even biology. But science is ALL knowledge. History, politics, mathematics, all fall under science. Science is purely rational and methodical evaluation of the world around you. That's all it is. It's required by any human being who isn't a sheep. To quote Einstein (and the quote I asked someone above me to read) "Science without religion is lame (mute). Religion without science is blind." In the end, a balance between the two must be maintained. Those who purely believe in "science" or those who purely believe that God wakes up and the sun rises are idiots. For one thing, the Bible actually tells us why the sun rises as it describes (albeit briefly) that God set the heavens in motion. It isn't God who is doing this actively, he set the Universe in motion according to laws to automatically move and allign in a predetermined pattern. I really urge you as I said before to find a theological school and go LISTEN. It's free and being Christians they will probably feed you a good meal, too. You will learn about the marriage of science and religion, which is something most "atheists" in these debates have been utterly blind to. If you want to get petty, that's actually the second verse of the Bible. Except God decided to be a little more active in the beginning. Which brings me to my next point. Most "atheists" who post in these threads have never even really opened a Bible. I recall Warrior and I agreeing long ago that it should be a prerequisite on these forums to have read the Bible at least once in a neutral reasoning before you can participate in these threads, instead of getting snippets off of an agenda based website that has been purposely quoted to be taken out of context. Let's not forget that the earliest civilizations had such rules in place as well. Christ even conceded when he stated the "Golden Rule" as they call it that the thinking had been around for generations, just that nobody would follow it. It's human nature to put yourself first, after all. It's discipline when you can move past your nature and feel for others as you feel for yourself. Ancient thinking. Also, the Bible does make no claim that Hebrew civilization was the first. Read Genesis to know that while the Acadians (early Jews) were disbanded and unorganized many great civilizations came to rise and pass. Even as near East as Uzer and Babylon. That school of thought had begun with the very dawn of civilization. Time and time again, Marx has been proven a moron. He couldn't even account for basic human nature and instinct when he wrote his ideas down on paper, which has led to over a century of violence because humans can not accomplish the goals he put down. Do you realize how many hundreds of millions of people have been killed in the name of Marx's teachings? That's pure freaking irony. That being said, he was correct in his quote when discussing events prior to 500 years ago, but as the population of the world becomes more educated, religion no longer becomes an opiate. However, look at places where education is not so good, like the Middle East, and you will see people being manipulated by their religion. That quote was written 150 years ago in the world of 150 years ago, not today.

You could have also gone to the Grand Exchange...

FYI I think you mean King Arthur and his entourage and not the White Knights. I think those were just put in as a fun reference long before they started these intermingling quest lines. Regicide was just going to be it's own quest but they started to tie it into this new storyline just as they did with all the quests. It was obviously a decision made in the last few years.

Strange, when I heard it on the radio this morning I seem to recall hearing how the coach was bragging about the victory. The mercy rules are broken, a few more points at halftime and the game would have been called. At a school that endeavors to teach kids Christ-like attitudes, having a coach who brags about running up the score is an embarrassment. I see no problem with them firing him for unsportsmanlike conduct. I'd be written up in an instant back when I was coaching if I did either of those acts. Coaches are supposed to teach their athletes the fundamentals of sportsmanship. If they can't do that, then they do not deserve to coach.

Guthix' followers do not need weapons or armor to keep the order. He simply has to speak and the world will shatter. Saradomin, Zamorak, Zaros, Armadyl? All powerless against him. Their only strength is his hibernation after millenia of work.

Except it's more like the "nothing but incredibly pointless and selfless ego stroking of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophical discussion" as nobody is actually giving their own opinions but simply quoting their favorite "hero" in the matter. There's very little independent thought, it's simply a link dump of footnotes. People will be begging to for lighthearted discussion in six months. All this has happened before and it shall all happen again.

Gah, Clear and Present Danger was on tonight and I forgot it was Friday. Anyone give me a quick synopsis of tonight's episode?

To be fair, Camp David is a work retreat, and a lot of his time at Crawford was spent entertaining dignitaries. That's a really bad estimate of his vacation time.

So the season's started up again with some major major plot twists. The first episode of the season sees another death, more mental breakdown, a startling discovery about Earth and it's lost population, and more mystery into what Kara has become (obviously not the final Cylon, judging by Leoben's reaction). Discussion starts...now.

The movie tanked with critics because it had no sex, nudity, major violence, and only a single profanity. That being said it was an amazing movie. Perfect accuracy, to the last detail. I was amazed. Also, Tom Cruise was chosen because the he looks uncannily like the real Stauffenburg. Also, How2PK: 1) Eww 2) She's in like 8 minutes of the movie

So I take it you've never had a job interview Gamestop doesn't care about these things, I don't have piercings, so don't take my word for it. I'm just making an assumption here, so there's that chance I'm probably wrong. Yes, let's work at GAMESTOP for a living! Pay our way through Collins College so we can program video games! A parent's responsibility is to protect their children and teach them how to make good decisions. Getting a tattoo or piercing when you're young might sound like a great idea, but you might end up regretting it later. Your parents are doing you a favor by doing this. They aren't dumb or anal, they've just been around the block a few times.

And I would tell my child "It's my house, my food, my bed, my car, my money." Or something along those lines :P.

Your parents pay your taxes, rent, food, schooling, phone, allowance, etc. That's why they can tell you what to do and what not to. Feel free to ditch them off and all those nice goodies so you can look like a [wagon].

Nah, this has always been a pretty interesting topic. The fact that some people here have read (transgender?) comics doesn't mean that they were necessarily the source, and definitely not the topic. I would agree with you, but I think this is just one of those age old questions, so attaching it exclusively to the crappy webcomic industry doesn't seem to give the question justice. That may be your reasoning, but judging by other posts on this thread *page* I would not use it as an excuse for others.

Google "McDonald's Kitchen" by Seamus Kennedy and any temptation you ever had to eat fast food will vanish.

"Common history" aka what they teach in schools *shudder* is rife with mis/half-truths and nationalistic propaganda. I try to teach real history when I can but it's hard for a 9th grader with undeveloped reasoning skills and 10 years of wrong teaching to grasp the concept of true history. It's always either the white legend or black legend, when they should be teaching the gray. History should be approached from all sides, not one. I completely agree with you here. ESPECIALLY colonialism. They don't really go into depth about how the colonists and conquistadors completely butchered and savaged millions of Native Americans. Hell, we celebrate Columbus; how backwards is it that we support a man that was the reason for the murder of millions of people. It's the same thing with the celebration of Che Gueverra. I am a socialist, but Che was nothing more than a brutal murderer, that killed those who refused to take up his cause. Who won WWII? Oh, America. While it's true that we did, can we please explore the effect that Russia had on the Eastern Front? You know, the part where most of the battles were waged? I guess we took out their contributions because of the Cold War, but it just annoys me. Uh, I think you brought a little too much into the Black legend there. While the European incursion did result to the deaths of millions because of disease (a population which then surged back to even higher levels with new resistances to disease, I might add), they did contribute a lot to the New World while the New influenced the Old. The exchange brought two hemispheres into the modern era. If the Colonial age had not happened, we might still be in a relative Dark Age in Europe. You have to approach history from ALL sides, weighing the actions and consequences on a scale, which must be balanced. For everything bad that happens, good happens as well. Although you are correct on the USSR. Edit: Thought of more stuff while I was taking a pee. So much thinking in the bathroom. If Columbus had not discovered America, then the American Revolution would not have happened, the French Revolution would not have happened, Napoleon would not have shattered Europe, the Alliance system would not be in place and WWI would not have happened (which while bad, destroyed the influence of royalty). We might even still have Kings and peasantry in all those nations today! Also, look at life for Indians in Latin America under Spanish rule. I spent a lot of time studying Spanish Colonialism and the Indians not only benefitted from Spanish rule but actually turned a profit as a result of it.

I think some people have been reading too many webcomics.

Why not both? Except on Photoshop Fridays when SomethingAwful usually redeems itself.

While this is tragic, it's nothing new. This happens a lot all over the world for much worse reasons than "snapping." What bothers me is that a black poor man who shanks a pregnant black woman might get a ten-thousand dollar bail but a white woman who kills a baby suddenly gets five million. Equal representation of justice my [wagon].

Pretty sure it will be over one hundred million USD. I wouldn't be surprised it it went over five. Then again the government has always insisted on spending money to make it. I would have liked to see a scaled down celebration in light of the economic situation, but more than likely all the vendors will be solar-powered (at greater expense) in order to be "green." If that's the case I may just hurt something. Haha, any news/media source other than AP fair? Classic. God forbid one network have a differing bias than six flavors of CNN, three of NBC, and 60 Minutes.

"Common history" aka what they teach in schools *shudder* is rife with mis/half-truths and nationalistic propaganda. I try to teach real history when I can but it's hard for a 9th grader with undeveloped reasoning skills and 10 years of wrong teaching to grasp the concept of true history. It's always either the white legend or black legend, when they should be teaching the gray. History should be approached from all sides, not one.

Just as a closing statement, Lincoln did not put into motion the end to slavery. He did, however, crush it under his foot. Jefferson Davis had actually issued forth a plan before the CSA Congress to phase out slavery over a ten year period. Slavery was going either way. Lincoln without a doubt accelerated the movement, but he did not begin it.