obfuscator

Religion doesn't necessarily objectively limit what people can learn.

But I thought you said it was just as bad to teach children moderate religious ideals as fundamentalist ones? Do you understand the concept of opinion vs. fact? Your claim that "but the consequences of teaching their religious beliefs as objective truths are deleterious to their long-term well-being" -this is an opinion, not a fact. It's also entirely possible for science and religion to co-exist - something you're conveniently ignoring because, as I said earlier, you have no interest in treating religion objectively.

So what do you think happens? Parents think "oh yeah, I know religion is terrible, I'm going to teach it to my kids to deliberately hurt them! Yeah!" Once again; you have no interest in looking at the matter objectively; and are sorely lacking in common sense.

Degreaser/RS/Axtinguisher is the best pyro setup tbh.

No, because you've repeatedly demonstrated you have no interest in approaching religion with any kind of objectivity, and as a result it would be a waste of my time.

No, you assume they're unhelpful. I assure you parents teaching religion to their children are quite sure it's helpful.

RIP. It wouldn't surprise me if it was drug related though; it's pretty well known she had problems with a variety of drugs.

If morality is truly subjective, there might as well not be morality at all.

Having a polyamorous lifestyle isn't necessary for happiness either.

No you're not all doomed to life-long misery with your exclusive, long-term partner. I just don't think it's a wise path to choose if you want to be happy for the rest of your life. But you're not stating that from a position of experience and authority, that's my point. I personally don't think polyamory is a wise path to choose if you want to be happy for the rest of your life either; but I accept that it's entirely possible for you to find happiness in that as what you want and need in life may differ from my wants and needs. I also have never tried having multiple sexual partners in an open relationship. I think it could also be argued that you're not necessarily qualified to argue in favor of monogamy either though. You've been in a relationship for 4.5 years, but if you're assuming you'll be together for the rest of your lives, you're still in the relationship's infancy. There's still lots left for you to experience... moving in together, getting married, having kids, etc. And vice versa, you're still in the infancy of your polyamorous lifestyle. I can do this all day :P

No you're not all doomed to life-long misery with your exclusive, long-term partner. I just don't think it's a wise path to choose if you want to be happy for the rest of your life. But you're not stating that from a position of experience and authority, that's my point. I personally don't think polyamory is a wise path to choose if you want to be happy for the rest of your life either; but I accept that it's entirely possible for you to find happiness in that as what you want and need in life may differ from my wants and needs. I also have never tried having multiple sexual partners in an open relationship.

I am too.

I just don't wanna argue with people who are currently in the honeymoon phase because I don't really see the point. You're right that I changed the numbers around-- I should've just said "anyone currently not in the honeymoon phase." I figured 5 years was a safe number :P If the honeymoon phase lasted forever, then relationships would never fail. The bolded is categorically untrue. An enormous number of relationships fail before the honeymoon phase even ends; or even if it's barely begun. And if you don't want to argue with people who "are still in the honeymoon phase", then we should refuse to argue with you until you've been in a long term relationship. Sounds fair to me :P Then surely you admit that just as it's unfair for us to assume you aren't and can't be happy because you're not in a monogamous long-term relationship; it's unfair for you to assume we're doomed to life-long misery with our exclusive, long-term partner?

I just don't wanna argue with people who are currently in the honeymoon phase because I don't really see the point. You're right that I changed the numbers around-- I should've just said "anyone currently not in the honeymoon phase." I figured 5 years was a safe number :P If the honeymoon phase lasted forever, then relationships would never fail. The bolded is categorically untrue. An enormous number of relationships fail before the honeymoon phase even ends; or even if it's barely begun. And if you don't want to argue with people who "are still in the honeymoon phase", then we should refuse to argue with you until you've been in a long term relationship.

My my, you all have been posting rather a lot, haven't you?

No, I'm fine debating it with them as long as they've been in a relationship for at least 5 years or so. But I have yet to meet anyone who feels the same way about their partner 5+ years later as they did when they first met. Peoples' brains change too much while they're in the honeymoon phase for me to take their thoughts too seriously. I'd rather wait for their brains to return to normal while still in the relationship and see how they're doing :P Are you still w/ your girlfriend btw? If so, how long's it been now? I've been with my girlfriend for 4.5 years. And according to all the scientific evidence I've seen on the issue, the honeymoon period is considered to end at around 1.5 years into the relationship, not five.

Why don't you want to debate this with people who are happy in long-term monogamous relationships? Because it kind of debunks your theory that such relationships are inherently unhealthy? And not everyone entering into a marriage just "crosses their fingers and hopes that everything will work out". In fact, given your disdain for monogamous relationships, I wonder why you feel you have the authority to make that claim...

I've learned plenty of history involving non-white people in months other than February.

Presidents day. Oh the ironing.

Haha yeah just saw that. They even changed http://didgomezscore.com/ :D

Leafs and Wings 2013 winter classic confirmed - at the big house! Definitely going to try to make the road trip...

Pyro irl?

That much is true, but you still don't need mega in-depth rs knowledge to deal with that kind of thing and there's always the ability to pass notification of a possible issue on to someone more qualified to judge it, plus if it was indeed trolling/wrong odds are a report would come through or other users would flag it up as such. Besides having such 'experts' just sounds to me like a road to an officially moderated version of a few months back where certain metagamers flamed the crap out of any advice that was not the absolute 100% metagame perfect route to take. Well perhaps that's a little bit of an extreme extrapolation, but it seems to kinda vibe aimed at, which just seems unnecessary to me. We've also had all kinds of false reports about trolling from people who want the moderators to take action on someone because they don't like them. Having moderators with a lot of RS knowledge helps with sorting through what complaints are valid and what aren't. Once again - I believe we have these moderators.

I don't see what the point is to having "a group of moderators to educate people about the game" - if moderation isn't their primary role then why call them moderators? If anything, you're asking for some kind of "runescape expert" staff group...which is an interesting thought in itself; but not as a moderator. EDIT: @Sy: it helps in the rs boards to determine what is trolling and what isn't. Also, there are rules in H&A about giving incorrect advice. When I was a moderator, most of the time I stayed out of GEN and H&A from a mod perspective, since I didn't really know the game much. Obviously if someone posts "bronze dagger is better than Godsword lololol" I know they're trolling; but if it's something a little less obvious, having more in-depth rs knowledge helps. And I do think we have that - we do have (as tripsis pointed out) a handful of good moderators who know the game quite well. Also, not everyone is suitable to be a moderator. You can't just give power to anyone and expect them to thrive with it, and do well with it.