sees_all1

I have seen people pretend that their system of science and math is superior to my beliefs in a higher power. They think I'm ridiculous because I have no proof, and my beliefs are based on nothing. I KNOW that their system of math and science are based off statements that cannot be proven, and they're equally ridiculous (and ignorant or hypocritical) in thinking their system is based in fact. You can't prove that one does not equal zero, I can't prove that it does. I can't prove that God exists, you can't prove that God doesn't. It means that one of us is wrong, no more and no less. Your claims that religion is on the whole destructive to humanity is absolutely ridiculous, especially since you can't prove the most basic of beliefs that you hang your entire argument on.

No, it is a belief, because you cannot prove it. For the sake of shutting you up, I will concede to your point. You STILL provide no reason to believe in a god, nor any evidence. Belief in a god is not beneficial; no, it is the reverse. "Belief" that there are numbers is not harming anyone, and amounts can be REPRESENTED by numbers. Thinking that because you believe in science and math, and all things "proven" is just as ridiculous as a belief in God (and in my opinion, neither are ridiculous). You can't prove anything in science or math without a couple simple statements that are held as absolute truths. Also, religion never developed nor used an atom-bomb, which is to say that numbers have harmed people more than religion.

No, it is a belief, because you cannot prove it.

And you still can't prove that 2+1=3 without axiom Z, that 1 does not equal 0. Your entire system of science and math cannot be proven without a few simple beliefs.

I'm dead serious, you can't prove Z. If I don't accept Z as fact, you can't prove that 2+1 = 3, when in fact 2 + 1 = 2.

Hold up two fingers. Now hold up one more finger. Now you're holding up 3 fingers. There's your damn proof.You still can't provide the existence of YOUR god, let alone the existence of the hundreds of thousands of gods that exist and have existed. 2 doesn't exist and 1 doesn't exist. Therefore you have no proof that 3 is the sum of 2 and 1. EDIT: I actually believe that Z isn't true, that is to say one equals zero. Therefore, 2 + 1 = 2. You can't prove me wrong because you can't prove Z.

In math, there are axioms which are held to be true and are not disputed, but are impossible to prove. For instance, the properties of equality: 1. Any number "a" exists, and a = a. 2. If a = b, then b = a. 3. If a = b and b = c, then a = c. Or the properties of addition 0. a + b exists 1. a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c 2. a + 0 = a 3. a + (-a) = 0 4. a + b = b + a And the properties of multiplication 0. a * b exists 1. a(bc) = (ab)c 2. a1 = a 3. For a != 0, a*a^-1 = 1 4. ab = ba And the other axioms - D. a(b + c) = ab + ac Z. 0 != 1. No amount of logic can prove these, and for math to work you just have to accept them. You must believe them, otherwise this "math" and "science" that exists falls apart and nothing is real. You think these are "facts", but they're not. It's our best guess for what we observe. You atheists say "God does not exist and cannot be proven", I can say in clear conscience that "a+b does not exist". I can't show you direct proof that God exists, but you can't show me direct proof that a+b exists. Math still exists, and religion still exists all the same.

You are thinking of god almost as a human. You will have trouble if you think of it that way. Btw - Christians believe that God was human, for a brief period of time.

I'm a Roman Catholic, at several points in my life I have had trouble believing the "dogma" of the Church until I read the reasoning behind it. The more I learn about faith and understand, the more beautiful and mysterious it becomes, which is someone paradoxical if you think about it. The way people look at religion is sort of like math, actually. For someone to have beliefs, there have to be established "axioms" - say G0 is that God exists, G1 is that God created everything, and so on. People that can't accept that will never be able to understand different parts of religion, or the conclusions drawn from them.

Regular bones and bat bones aren't worth the time picking up, however prayer doors give some nice XP. If there's a dinosaur next to an altar, I'll take a couple hits to kill it and get some nice prayer xp, but holding on to all those bones is hardly worth it and slows everyone down.

That's insane. He didn't even look remotely abnormal (although he may have had he been walking). He was carrying at least 40, maybe 50 pounds of weapons. You would definitely be able to tell if he was trying to walk, and he definitely couldn't sit down.

What is love? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpwK3vFGJp0

The 1928 law allowed people to have 1 gun with 50 bullets, subject to police approval, they also had to be registered. Basically, it served to arm more people sympathetic with the Nazis. The German people had absolutely no right to bear arms, as guaranteed in the US constitution. You're also taking the entire paper out of context, were very clearly in the introduction it says:

Armed citizens gives them the ability to defend themselves from factions within the government, or even overthrow the government (like in the case of the U.S.'s Revolutionary War). It's very difficult to intimidate someone who is on an equal footing as you. In the Germany example, if the communist party was armed it could have defended itself from the Nazi party, especially when their rights were trampled on. Lol, the US citizens would never revolt against their government, and even if they did and they did it violently, America has the biggest military in the world. What would they be able to do against that? US citizens dissent against their government all the time, especially during elections. They usually don't need to revolt because they can change the government. And as far as "would never revolt," it's already happened large scale and violently twice - once during the Revolutionary War, and the second during our Civil War. If you're saying that we don't need guns because we won't try to stage a coup, you may be right, but there are also times when the government isn't always there, and anarchy takes its place. It happened in the days after Katrina, so to think that can never happen is foolish.

If you're looking to prepare for free trade, here's my analysis of the market (I feel so awesome saying this) - Armour in the long run will be the biggest loser. This includes god armour, trimmed, etc. Short-term it may spike, but I wouldn't trust it for more than 2-3 weeks. In the old system, armour was destroyed all willy-nilly - whenever you downed an opponent in full rune, the most you could get was 2 things from their inventory, plus 2 high level drop items. So when a person in full rune went down, they'd lose 1. full helm 2. body 3. legs 4. kite 5. scimitar 6. 2h, and POSSIBLY 7. gauntlets. At best you'd get 4 pieces of rune armour, and half the time it was unwanted junk anyway (rune swords, longswords, battleaxes). In this new (old... er... what?) system, when you kill a person no armour will leave the game. Of armour, the biggest of the losers will be FoG rewards. Long term I expect them to drop to 2/3rd to even 1/2 of their current price. An influx of items without a way to leave the game will cause deflation - coins will be very valuable. The biggest gainers (if you can obtain any) short-term will be consumables like swordfish, lobsters, strength potion, adamant arrows. I'd be very weary of some of the popular macro'd consumables longterm, swordfish and lobsters, until we can see Jagex effectively fight macroers. If they can't, the prices on these items will be tied to real life currency. On a personal note, I haven't sold my santa hat yet. I expect lots more people to get banned for RWT, making rares even rarer. Lastly, raw materials such as uncut gems, bones, and certain ores will be largely unaffected by an influx of macroers. Most ores already have a macroer on them, most gems are hard to obtain, and there is no longer a place to easily obtain big bones like the bone pit.

Armed citizens gives them the ability to defend themselves from factions within the government, or even overthrow the government (like in the case of the U.S.'s Revolutionary War). It's very difficult to intimidate someone who is on an equal footing as you. In the Germany example, if the communist party was armed it could have defended itself from the Nazi party, especially when their rights were trampled on.

I think you missed the point, actually. The 1933 March election would be the same as America holding congressional elections a week after 9/11/2001. What's more is in that week after 9/11, it would be the same thing as all the Republicans blaming the Democrats for the terrorist attacks, having all prominent leaders of the DNC arrested, then by leveraging fear against the other party and silencing any dissent. They'd need to gain about 10% to get enough seats to pass anything they want, which without anyone opposing them would be trivial. Then, when they gained a super majority, they'd pass an Amendment to the US constitution giving all power to the President. The entire process of silencing opposition is much easier when your citizens don't have a means to defend themselves, which was the case in post 1928 Germany.

Wtf.

The point I'm trying to make is that in 1928, when Germany restricted gun ownership, everyone probably thought they were better off for it (at the very least it'd make a coup d'etat more difficult). No one would have been able to see 5 or 10 or 15 years into the future. Yes, I understand that Germany was unstable at the time, but really what would it take to put Canada or the U.K. into a similar situation? A famine, some financial markets and/or other industries complete collapse? If the government didn't reorganize itself into a Dictatorship, it could very well be anarchy, for the time being. If that happened, chaos would ensue, and the last people to be looted would be the ones that are able to protect themselves. [hide=After Hurricane Katrina, looting was rampant. If you were a looter, you'd at least think twice before touching this property:] [/hide]

I'ma be staying away from this for at least a month after they get it right... No sense risking things needlessly.

Figured it would be better to hold my tongue after being awarded a temp ban at zybez (god damn their mods are ridiculous), still had to say something though. Just don't compare to Nazi Germany, it's a bad idea Next time you should just say "post count" instead, we'll understand. Hitler came to power because he was a master of manipulation and insanely clever. He only took away the rights of society once he had everyone on board with it - by the time he got going, ifi the jews had guns it wouldn't mean crap, because the 85% of the population that liked what Hitler was doing had guns too. Gun rights in Germany were largely taken away in 1928, 5 years before the Nazis were elected to power. Hitler was elected January 30th, but had limited powers. He planned on having a parliamentary election March 5th, when the Reichstag building was set fire a week before - February 27th. Hitler used the opportunity to have the President of Germany suspend most civil rights throughout Germany, forcing opposing newspapers to shut down and allowed him to declare that Communists set fire to the Reichstag building as a plot to overthrow the government. On March 23rd Hitler had a law passed that made him essentially dictator of Germany. If the Communists in Germany had guns, they wouldn't have as easily been suppressed. In the week before the March 5th election, Hitler used the police to intimidate and silence his opposition. The seats he gained in the election were at the expense of the Communist party, but they weren't enough to pass the Enabling Act (required 2/3rd versus the 44% the Nazis had) - they had to convince a couple other minority parties to go along with them. If the election ended up any differently, I don't think Hitler could have become the dictator he was. Later in 1938 Hitler banned all gun ownership from the Jews, but at this point it probably was too late. Last thing - he made sure to take away the guns of people he conquered. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolf Hitler

Figured it would be better to hold my tongue after being awarded a temp ban at zybez (god damn their mods are ridiculous), still had to say something though. Just don't compare to Nazi Germany, it's a bad idea Next time you should just say "post count" instead, we'll understand.

Hate to talk about the Nazis, but I believe they're a pretty good example of what can happen.

Maybe... it all depends who is in power at the time.

Maybe not right now, but historically WITH America and Britain that WAS the case. In fact, I believe we have you to thank for our Bill of Rights, considering you guys violated every single one of them. So, on behalf of America, thank you. All it takes is a crisis for a peaceful society with no need for guns to become a dictatorship with no freedoms, and no one able to speak out against it.