Zonorhc

And what about hereditary diseases? Because the Bible says so. I didn't ask why (though some verses would be nice), I asked what. Having sex and not being married is what's immoral. The daughters of Lot had sex with him without marriage, and they certainly weren't punished in any way by your God. Before that, Lot offered his (already married) daughters to a crowd of rapists so they wouldn't assault an angel sent by God, and he wasn't punished for that. In fact, God punished the city of Sodom with a bloody firestorm because they wouldn't have sex with the (ALREADY MARRIED) girls instead. I can't find the specific reference, but there is a passage in the Bible where a man is punished by God for not ejaculating inside his brother's wife, rather than for the act of adultery itself.

You need to read the entire thread. What is being discussed is the study of the nature of knowledge, rather than the study of knowledge itself.

Yes, because Americans will start a war as soon as something bad happens, never mind that they won't know who is actually behind it. The problem with the OP is that it's ambiguous regarding consequences.

The examples you gave aren't really the best. The coin doesn't have to land as heads or tails - there is the slight chance that it lands on edge, however small. Also, while a statement can either be true or false, it doesn't necessarily have to be wholly true or false. Shades of grey come into play here.

Condoms dull the sensation by easily half. Then again, babies would do that even more, so I'm sticking to condoms.

That... would actually have worse consequences than bombing a first-world city. See my post.

Personally, I believe that philosophy shouldn't develop with an overarching principle already in mind. Rather, you should collect thoughts from relevant fields and analyse them to create an idea of what existence could be. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to formulate an idea of existence without some sort of solid basis on established thought. A notable characteristic of Presocratic philosophy is that those who contributed to it did so in amazingly disparate ways, rather than aiming for a particular goal.

Keep thinking that until you get herpes - the gift that keeps on giving.

Starcraft.

A condom has no reason to fail if you are using it properly. If it has a defect caused by the manufacturing process, it will be evident when you put it on. Easily solved by putting on another condom. If it somehow slips off during intercourse, it was not worn correctly, or was an inappropriate size. Again, easily solved by getting the right condoms and using them properly. In this case, it should be easy enough to figure out that you should stop shagging until you've got another one on. Reusing condoms is generally a messier affair than it's worth. Really, that statistic about condom effectiveness actually takes into account human error, as far as I'm concerned. The companies that manufacture those things have it in their best interests to make sure they work correctly. It's just people being stupid that makes up that tiny percentage of contraception failure.

Kill him.

I don't like Pepsi, but I'd much prefer one with good, honest, in-your-face sugar. I mean, seriously, drinking something with sugar substitutes because it's close enough to sugar is like picking up a hooker because it's close enough to a girlfriend.

Yes, but that's coming out of the 25 million. That's essentially taking less than the maximum they're willing to pay simply to cover up for their screwup - I'll be getting less than what I'm supposed to be paid at the end of the day, like some sort of tax. For killing people.

Yes, but that's not the point of the question. It was the study of knowledge vis the study of existence. As a corollary, not knowledge of existence, but the study of its nature. Further, not knowledge about knowledge, but about its nature. It's slightly confusing semantic ground at first.

A few variables to consider: Where will the bomb be detonated? It would be an even harder decision if it were dropped in, say, a rural community in Africa, where they need all the hands they can get just to squeeze food out of the land. More people will suffer for those 1,000 people, even if they can more easily replace them. If it was in the middle of a city, 1,000 people killed at random will statistically not affect things too much: the service industry might slow down for a couple of days, but the unemployment rates will take care of the losses. Conversely, if it were dropped on, say, a hospital for the terminally ill, then go for it. Will I be held accountable? The organisation I work for may not find out, but there is nothing in the scenario that says other organisations won't find out. When the media gets wind of any leads on something like this, it will be a Bad Thing. Will these deaths affect me indirectly (aside from possible emotional strain)? Six degrees of separation come into play here. How will the funds be transfered? Will it be taxable? Where will it come from? Will it be in cash? Obviously, if it is in cash form, it could bump the economy slightly. An inflow of $25m may not be that much in the grand scheme of things, but remember that this is potentially coming out of nowhere: essentially, the government printing off $25m without taking any existing money out of circulation. Otherwise, yeah, if I do decide to accept, I'll try to get as much money as possible for it. If I had no choice in the matter, I wouldn't want to get less money than the most they will pay, if I was going to potentially harm children. Of course, since I do have a choice in the matter, I probably wouldn't do it.

But then, could you not say that knowledge develops, rather than being created? I would disagree that it is physical in any way. Yes, knowledge can be applied to, used to create, or transmitted through physical objects, but in no way does that make the knowledge itself physical. In this sense, knowledge is essentially metaphysical. As existence can be loosely defined as a physical state as well as a metaphysical one - for example, the mind and Descartes' famous expression regarding it - then one could argue that the study of knowledge and existence itself are two separate fields that could be applied to one another, without either being required to understand the other. I don't see how the study of existence is required to lead onto the study of knowledge, because both are subjective principles that are, in some ways, mutually exclusive. I refer of course, to the fact that one can discuss the nature of an animal's existence without necessarily discussing the nature of the knowledge pertaining to that animal. The inverse is also true, as in the case of theories regarding extraterrestrial life: one can discuss the nature of the knowledge pertaining to extraterrestrial life, largely as a derivative of knowledge regarding life already familiar to us, without actually discussing the existence of that life, only the potential of it. Dialectic discourse is awesome.

Conjuration is easy since it gives a decent amount of progression no matter what spells you cast, and destruction slightly less. Just summon a skeleton and blast it with a lightning touch, and repeat the cycle. Use higher level summons if you want to fill soul gems. Right now I'm regretting having conjuration as a major skill, because it made me level too fast and now I've got daedra up the wazoo and, while I have a load of magicka, the monsters have way too much health and I don't have enough skill with weapons to deal with them after I run out of potions and poisons. Then again, this is also due to the fact that I refuse to turn down the difficulty from the maximum setting. But let's face it, Oblivion scales in a very obscene way. You're taking some time off to enjoy the scenery and nice mountain air, then it's WTF MOUNTAIN LION *DIES*

Wait, you asked for medieval-based games and then said the game doesn't have to be medieval-based? Then you list a string of fantasy games - not medieval! - topped with the worst example of a plotless dungeon crawl, being the Dungeon Siege series. Then you provide the examples of Morrowind and Oblivion, which, while excellent games, are not medieval-based, but rather fantasy-based. And then you give the example of the Age of Empires games, of which only AoE 2 and its expansion are based on the medieval era. What gives? Oh well, if you want some actual medieval-based games, then you shouldn't go any further than Medieval 2: Total War, and the upcoming Assassin's Creed, and although the latter takes some liberties, it's still largely in a medieval setting. Next time you make a thread, please take the time to actually think about what you want rather than contradicting yourself in the first two lines.

I would argue that this is not the case, as the study of existence does not logically require the examination of the nature of knowledge, rather, existence itself. If existence was equated to knowledge, then yes, a study of the nature of knowledge would be required, but seeing as how it is not, then no.

... It's a two hour flight. Marry me, female. =D Please explain the link? Capitalism doesn't cause people to have vices. Freedom doesn't cause people to have vices. Hell, if anything, repressing freedoms causes people to assert themselves to fulfill those vices more - see prohibition in the US, and the repression of the peasant class in Soviet Russia, ca.1920s. Will it? The administration trying to control everything and keeping everyone on the same level caused the suffering peasant class to resist and deny their livestock to the Bolshevik (well, the Communist Party) requisition corps. An entire generation of Russians went without meat as a result of this attempted control.* Could it not be considered a "sin" to deprive children of an essential element of diet, against their will and without their knowledge? *David Christian, Power, privilege and the challenge of modernity (1986, multiple publishers), page reference unavailable.

I know a much better gift to your spouse than your virginity: knowing how to do it well. Seriously, right now I'd rather sleep with someone who knows what they're about rather than someone who's been "waiting all their life for this moment". Makes for a better experience. If anything, premarital sex has strengthened my current relationship with my girlfriend. To say that it's wrong because it violates the sanctity of marriage stinks of conservative prudishness. You're not "taking intimacy" from them like it's a strictly one-way act. The pleasure is mutual. Unless, of course, you're not doing it right.

To be fair to post-2000 music, you have bands like Blind Guardian, DragonForce and Rammstein to make up for the overall shoddiness of pop, rap and R&B.

Turn in your keyboard. We are kicking you out of typing.

I decided to roll an orc warrior named Gorgaz on Burning Blade. Feel free to add him. There will be much WAAAGH!

FFVI all the way. Best villains in Final Fantasy. Ever. No questions asked. I refer, of course, to Ultros and Kefka. Kefka is exactly the sort of villain that makes you want to beat the everliving crap out of him. He's insane. He has genocidal tendencies. He likes to experiment with sentient beings. He poisons children. On top of all that, he's a clown.