aspeeder

Any idea what the Gorajian Mushrooms do? EDIT: I'm liking the idea of having them degrade and needing the specific drops to repair it, means that it will always be at least a marginal profit to kill them. One more thing, in addition to 3k polypore spores you need 15k fire runes to make the staff, and they charge the staff.

Been here about an hour, gotten a stick, 1.4k spores, 459 flakes, some watermelon seeds and noted stuff, but most interestingly a yew seed and a palm tree seed (EDIT: And torstol too now, but that's not as different). I think they're gonna drop some too. EDIT: If you let them get close to you and infect you they can turn off your prayers, not very dangerous but something to look for.

Bleh, 2 RD-based episodes in a row has made me a bit sick of her character. She's fine in small doses, but the arrogance is starting to wear on me.

But which of those populations has the greatest concentration of rs players? Pure population isn't the main point here, it's sheer amount and location of rs players.

I could maybe justify NY or LA, but Chicago would be awesome for me. A bit self-centered probably, and yeah in the overall scheme the extra money probably wouldn't be worth it, but I'd love to attend a Runefest and all of the other locations are pretty far away.

There are other things on the internet that do more damage to my wrists than runescape, if you catch my drift. I do get raging headaches if I'm at a monitor too long and then look away.

Because babies have more biological independence they can be put up for adoption if they are infringing on the rights of the parent more than they want, with pregnancy it's either keep being violated or abortion. You also have to remember that most abortions don't take place when it's a fetus, usually the egg has only progressed to a zygote stage which has faaaaaar less biological independence and mental capacity than even a preemie. It'd depend on the person I suppose, but even besides the immediate inconvenience of all the physical needs being pregnant can mean having to delay grad school, decline a job offer, it can change where you decide to live and you might be forced to stay with a partner you wouldn't have otherwise, not to mention the social stigma that often comes with unplanned pregnancies. Babies are more voluntary due to the fact that they are only socially dependent. Also when you say a "normal" pregnancy, their rights are still being violated it's just that the mother is voluntarily choosing to forgo her rights in order to allow the fetus to develop.

Ah, I can see that I haven't been very clear with that. With respect to someone in a coma or something they have the physical ability to be self-conscious but they are just not in the right state. Fetuses and babies are physically unable to be self-conscious because they lack the brain capacity at that point in their development. And the reason I don't just randomly assault or kill babies before they're self-aware is because I promote their welfare as long as that does not infringe on the rights of a full person. It's kinda the opposite, neither babies or fetuses are really people to me, it's just that if it's not physically dependent on the mother and causing her harm it's fine to exist. Hope that clears that up? If that's not what I stated earlier, or not how you interpreted it earlier I apologize, but this is my thoughts on the matter.

@obfuscator: I suppose, but I think most people would agree that keeping one's bodily rights is more important that their right to recreation. Some'd argue that use of drugs is a part of bodily freedom, but I don't really agree with that viewpoint. I guess that by wanting her pregnancy and forgoing her rights. the woman would also be gaining certain responsibilities to the fetus. Also what's confusing about my definition? I get that it's very precise and not really a lay definition, but what's tripping you up? @ sees_all: really? Even with those two causes combined the maternal deathrate is far higher than abortion. I'd look at the source but I'm on mobile atm (Sorry about any typos while I'm at it).

I didn't address it because it's not particularly worth addressing, pregnancies are unsafe. And yes, as you stated earlier I wouldn't disallow it either way but you're creating an abstract world that has no reflection to the realities of millions of women. I doubt very much that the decision to have an abortion for not equally effects both partners. And just so we're very clear, please tell me all those reasons that affect the men equally. I'm not saying that abortions have no impact upon male parties whatsoever, but to say it's equal is like saying prostate cancer affects women equally to men. Perhaps you should try counting sometimes, the majority of those definitions pointed to born persons, not fetuses. Not to mention the fact that Wikipedia states that in the cases that it's referring to an unborn fetus is generally a vernacular sense. You're, intentionally or not, using ambiguous and unsound terms to support your argument. And you seem to miss the point I stated both here and below. Intent and circumstances can change change whether or not an action is justifiable. So if she was having an abortion to help her family that does make it "more" moral. Missing the point, I'm saying that the circumstances of an action CAN AND OFTEN DO change whether or not an action is moral. Nothing is totally absolute. Because in the case of an infant you could, assuming no strange circumstances, give the baby up for adoption. With a fetus there is no option like that, except carrying it to term which can still cause massive damage to a woman's life. As I tried to correct in my earlier quote, they weren't doing everything under the sun to ever prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in their uterus. But they were, even according to the statistics you provided, using birth control on a somewhat regular basis to avoid pregnancy. But my point, which you also passed over, was that in the case of childcare BOTH parties need to take roughly equal responsibility, whereas pregnancy significantly affects women more than men. And it's also not about not "wanting to" or "feeling like it," it can also be not able to period. Both of their hopes and dreams are dashed when it comes to childcare, but pregnancies reduce the ability for women to successfully operate in the world at a greater level than men. You seem to have some deep-seated resentment of women and child-care payments clouding your arguments, but no matter how many times you bring it up the case remains that the two simply are not equivalent or comparable. That'd be true if everyone had similar access. And it is true, when abortion was illegal many women did have safe but illegal abortions in the US. The problem is that most of those women were rich/lived in rich families, and many of the problems that adversely affect women during pregnancy are exacerbated by low income. I would rather get a legal abortion from the best hospital in Ghana than an illegal abortion in the US where I could barely afford food. A newborn is not a fetus, nor do abortions usually take place that freaking late in the pregnancy. Tell me who would call this "a person?" Ahh, of course, the "it doesn't apply to you so you can't have an opinion" argument. We don't have self-awareness until we're two, right? So once again - we should be able to murder or young children since "it's not the killing of another person, since once again that means having self-awareness". Once again look to my welfare vs. rights argument earlier. -Life -Liberty -Pursuit of Happiness -Security of Person (I'd rearrange the last two, but whatever) I've arranged them in the order of importance. This is quite straightforward - abortion takes a life. You can argue about a human life, or life of a person, but what you can't deny is that something living is being killed. So what you're arguing is that the mothers' rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and security of person all supersede the fetus' right to life (as that is always what is being infringed upon by abortion). But it's easy to make an argument that a woman's right to drink and do drugs fall directly under her right to pursuit of happiness! (a rather sad attempt at happiness, I admit, but to each their own....). Yet you just said (and I agree) that a mother does not have the right to exercise a right that is trivial in comparison to our primary right - life. Life is greater than liberty. Life is greater than pursuit of happiness. Life is greater than security of person. Which is why whenever a conflict of rights involves the right to life it must always supersede. So is my right to kill a mosquito not greater than the mosquito's right to life? ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS[/sarcasm]. That's what I'm arguing with the fetus being not a person, it does not have equal measure of rights compared to full humans. If an animal, say a puppy, created as much problems for a woman as a pregnancy would I'd absolutely defend her right to put it down. And drinking isn't happiness, it's elation. Happiness=/=Joy/Fun.

1. Considering such a scenario is beyond banal, not even babies have self awareness. Most humans achieve self-awareness around age 2. 2. The point that it's totally physically dependent on the mother makes the situation a bit more morally grey, consider the violinist argument posted in the link. 3. It's the combination of lack of physical awareness, complete physical dependence, and the effects it has on the women that makes abortion moral. A lot of people don't have self awareness. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find physical dependence to be an acceptable reason to murder...well, ridiculous. Easy to say when there's .00000001% chance of anything ever being physically dependent on you. And it's not murder since it's not the killing of another person, since once again that means having self-awareness. Like with animals, killing of those without it shouldn't be taken lightly or with little care, but those who are/have the capacity for self-awareness should be placed above. [spoiler=Slight disgression]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBShN8qT4lk Sorry, it had to be done :P And I'd say that the mother doesn't have a right to drink/do drugs. The rights of the mother to abort a fetus fall under the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and security of person. All of those things have legal foundations. However, there is no Beastie Boys precedent in our legal system.

1. Considering such a scenario is beyond banal, not even babies have self awareness. Most humans achieve self-awareness around age 2. 2. The point that it's totally physically dependent on the mother makes the situation a bit more morally grey, consider the violinist argument posted in the link. 3. It's the combination of lack of physical awareness, complete physical dependence, and the effects it has on the women that makes abortion moral.

The link I've posted MANY TIMES explains many times that the absolute physical dependance of the fetus to the mother's body, and the inhabitants of 2 living organisms in the same body makes it a different situation to, say, people in a coma. [spoiler=Link Text]4. Is it physically independent? No. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother. Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence. What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence. Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then. Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did - the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist - but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive? This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist's own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence. This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle. To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion. Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person. Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death. Is there something else I have to explain to make this argument clear? EDIT: Here's another way to put it: I think about "fetus rights" in the same way as "animal rights." I'm all for the welfare of these beings, it's not like they should be subject to cruel treatment unnecessarily. But since they do not have sentience they do not have rights, because rights require both reciprocation/understanding of the rights of others and responsibilities that come with them. In the same way that animals attack each other in outright cruel ways in the wild the fetus makes the mother go through periods of suffering, through no fault of their own; they can't know any better. But in the same way that a dog that is doing much harm to people can be put down morally, a fetus that is doing much harm can be aborted morally. The fact that it's abiding in a full person's body only makes the situation more clear.

Irrelevant to the question asked, which I'm sure you know. I was emphasizing the point that even discounting extenuating circumstances pregnancy is a dubious prospect. But sure, taking your hypothetical example of a pregnancy made of sunshine, sparkles, and rainbows it would be irrelevant. Oh, boy. Here goes a doozy of a response. Bring it, my 2AC is ready. The party paying the child support isn't the only one paying for the child. Both of the parents in the situation are contributing to the child's upbringing, so the mother wouldn't just be doing it to drain money away from the father and just have no adverse effects to her own independence. If she keeps the child it's still a lot of work on her end, assuming she's not being abusive, which is different from pregnancy which is often exclusively a drain on the women's resources and opportunities. They are different situations completely, you're just trying to derail this argument; try again. And yeah I can tell you're a male, so am I. And for the record I don't buy the argument of "You should have kept it in your pants." It's [bleep]-shaming plain and simple, and using against either gender is not ok. Ok, first off you're derailing trying to swap children with a fetus and by using the extreme term of infanticide which is not the same as abortion. And while I wouldn't necessarily agree with what you said due to the extreme and slanted nature of the statement you cannot argue that the morality of a given action changes based on the circumstances. Is it ok to kill? No. What about in self-defense? That changes the answers of many people. I'd argue that absolutely it'd be moral of a mother to get an abortion in order to avoid a further drain on her resources and ensure a more stable and invested upbringing of her current child(ren). On the other hand, 49.3% of condom users reported inconsistent use at the time they got pregnant: [spoiler=Data]-20.4% didn't use because they didn't think they'd get pregnant -14.3% didn't have one -12.8% didn't expect to have sex -7.1% simply forgot about it -5.6% didn't feel like using one -3.5% reported their partner didn't feel like using one -1.0% reported that their partner was supposed to bring one, though they still had sex -1.0% said their partner wanted them to get pregnant -0.5% were forced to have sex -0.5% thought they wanted to get pregnant -0.5% didn't care if they got pregnant Linky linky So stop and think about that for a second. Close to a full 76% of pill users who were on the pill and obtained an abortion and a full 50% of women using condoms who are included in the "were-using-contraceptive" category weren't using contraceptives at the time they became pregnant. If you were to add them to the "not-using-contraceptives" category, along with those women who obtain abortions while using the withdrawal method (which is pretty much not a contraceptive method as far as I'm concerned), you'd get something like 80%+ of women obtaining abortions not using contraceptives at the time they got pregnant. That's a staggering number, and completely cuts at the BS rhetoric thrown out by pro-choicers. Ok, yes, they weren't on the pill, using condoms, using spermicidal lube, and using a diaphragm. But, even according to the evidence (Which was also the evidence I sourced) you posted a majority of women were using contraceptives on a regular basis. And your "full 76%" is largely comprised of those who forgot to take them. Do you know how easy it is to miss a pill, especially in social situations away from normal routines? But even with all of that the point was that most of the women cared about using contraceptives and circumstances, whether their own fault or not, worked against their desires. Mistakes happen, and they happen easily; maybe not all of the women are being 100% responsible 100% of the time, but NO ONE IS. I'm sorry, but months of having your body hijacked, the myriad health risks, the risk of postpartum depression, and having your future/career/family/dreams put in danger is not the proper consequence of a mistake that anyone can make and only 50% of us have to deal with. Side note: I do agree that pulling out isn't a proper contraceptive method, mostly due to the fact that it's unreliable and pre-[bleep] before the orgasm also contains sperm, but that's often due to disinformation spread by various pro-abstinence groups and lack of proper sex education. And you know what the crazy part is? If women become pregnant and didn't want to, but safe and legal abortions aren't available, they're still going to try and get an abortion. But it will be unsafe, and in fact 68,000 women die per year of unsafe abortions because of pro-life restrictions. These deaths are completely avoidable. Adjective versus noun. You mean as to what makes something human versus what makes something a human? Like I've posted many times before in this thread to be recognized as "a human" requires personhood which means self-awareness.

http://afterabortion.org/2004/death-rate-of-abortion-three-times-higher-than-childbirth/ There are many things wrong with your statement. Firstly, all statistics for abortions are lumped into pregnancy statistics. Secondly, all women with previous abortions are lumped into pregnancy statistics. The risk for complications in the pregnancy after an abortion greatly increase due to scarring. Also, post-abortion complications are under reported due to the secret nature of the procedure itself. About 10% of women have complications after abortion, with about 2% being major. Also lumped into pregnancy statistics are the conditions of the babiesfetuses themselves, a premature babyfetus might not pose much of a risk to its mother but the complication is certainly life threatening to the babyfetus. Basically anything saying otherwise and NOT reporting/removing these factors is likely to have a serious flaw in its statistic, and quite probably a biased source. HA, you're telling me about biased sources? The links you posted were from the Elliot Foundation, which is trying to, "prove how abortion hurts so many women [...] end the scourge of abortion." And no, I'm talking about Maternal Death. And according to more unbiased sources, like the World Health Organization: Country; Deaths caused by miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, abortion; Pregnancy-related deaths, excluding abortion France; 2; 48 Australia; 0; 12 Canada; 1; 10 Furthermore, Source.

You can search the runescape clan database, there's a few small clans there.

Yes it is, for one thing because even a normal pregnancy poses much larger health risks than getting an abortion. And also because it threatens her personal and financial dependance, often the structure of her already existing family (A majority of women who have abortions already have children Source), and they were often doing the most to prevent pregnancy (Source). And get writing, I'd be interested what your retorts are. As to what makes something human, it is DNA. My liver is no less alive nor less human than a fetus, a child, or an adult.

I was wondering why this topic got bumped after so long. And then I saw the front page. I seriously wonder how anyone thought this could be a legit incentive.

No, it is censorship in that sense. As soon as the government has control over something new, people will do their best to gain control over it. I could easily see a future government where the people in control over this block things that go against their beliefs (Christians blocking access to anything that says anything bad against Christianity, Conservatives blocking anything that promotes liberalism, corrupt persons who will accept bribes to block those in competition with the bribees.) Before anyone says that the people currently in power wouldn't do that, it doesn't matter. You cannot guarantee me that all future governments will remain as impartial to those things. It's there that my issues arise. Eh, that's a slippery slope scenario, which while possible isn't what these bills are going to do immediately. They're going to extend the reach of corporations more than the government, at least at first.

I deal with razor burn everytime I shave, because I also have super sensitive skin. But my beard also grows a lot, just not very well everywhere. So generally if I don't want to look crappy I have to shave every third day or every other day. It's the worse of both worlds. Guess I'm kinda lucky then, it's not very spotty and once it gets just a little longer than scruff it stops growing. Still, I have way too much neckbeard, and that's the hardest place to get to :mellow: .

As I said earlier, the biggest problem I have with it is the way it messes with exp tracking and skills calcs. And needing to keep on subscribing to stay on top of 200M is pretty lame too, Toony earned his spot as #1 slayer.

No stranger than these people: Also, it's kinda weird that there was more discussion about the show before the second season started than when it's actually going on, what are people's opinions on the new episodes as a whole?

Ok, this isn't censorship in that the government can tell you what is and isn't wrong. It's basically stronger protections for copyrighted works and the ability to more effectively prosecute sites who allow copyrighted content to be posted and shared. In other words, goodbye youtube, myspace, facebook, yahoo, tumblr, torrents, megavideo, megaupload. I can understand where the companies are coming from, but the power given in the bill reaches much too far and basically takes down many effective forms of social networking.

Been shaving more this month than usual, interestingly enough. I envy you guys that don't grow much, since I can't shave often since my skin is super sensitive. I get Dex's scruff in about a week.

Or one could say from the dumb people to the already rich people who could afford a rank, in which case it's not very Darwinian.