Assume Nothing

"Food"

I meant appetising foodstuffs, not.. that

It's a shame you don't actually have a Yak. You could always try this without yak but I'm not too sure; Kill Green Dragons in a Bh+1 world, getting EP and a target at the same time. Kill your targets and other random people for cash too.

Hypocrites. On this thread.

Pro-life is almost like a religion, =/ Still haven't established clearly whether a unborn fetus has a right to life yet. It can't technically feel pain or know anything until at least the 6th week, and is it a 'human person' yet? I could argue that it's not living, but then someone will bring up the fact that it has potential life...

Well, that's the way things go. Inflation will never stop in a game like this, and eventually, the buying power of gp will become so weak that we'll hit the max trade limit. How should we go about fixing the problem... perhaps adjust the GE a bit. If there's a massive difference in buy and sell offers, update the GE for that specific item.

Don't get me wrong, there are tons of vegetarian dishes that aren't strictly healthy for you, but on the whole, meat-eaters tend to consume more unhealthy fats in their diet. There is also the issue of all the unhealthy chemicals, pesticides, and hormones that you (maybe unknowingly) are ingesting into your body when you eat meat. What the cows/chickens/pigs eat, you are essentially eating as well. They pump animals full of hormones to get them to grow as fat and large as possible, in the shortest amount of time possible -- and then you turn around and ingest this all at the dinner table. However, and even though it may be odd to say this, there are times when someone has to eat meat, or risk their health. For example, a mentor of mine used to be a vegetarian and she eventually was later diagnosed with cancer (diagnosis not caused from her being a vegetarian.) In order to keep her body in as healthy a state as possible as she went through chemotherapy, etc., she had to start eating meat again. Well, to find traces of pesticide on a carrot is hardly worth not eating vegetables. Whilst it's true that certain meat industries would overuse hormones and antibiotics, not everyone does so. It's kind of biased how people would try to imply that these problems don't exist in a vegetarian diet, when in reality, they do.

If you like doing it, then it's efficient. It is a rational decision, correct?

I pee in the shower.

Posts/Comments like this;

If I wanted to be vegetarian for a few days, what foodstuffs are there to choose from?

[hide] I'm not pro-life, but I think you could argue for the exception and not be logically inconsistent (I don't think they are being logically consistent, but you could argue it). A woman has a right to life, but she also has a right to good health. She has a right to be free from mental anguish, which is a component of good health. She has a right to privacy. With the exception of the most radical, the debate is over what the balance should be within the law between these rights that all potential mothers enjoy and any presumptive rights that a embryo or fetus should enjoy. As a moral question, this is obviously one of the most difficult questions to answer. As a legal matter, the courts basically say that the mother's life and health (including mental health) has the higher claim. However, her privacy right moves on a continuum, weakening as the pregnancy progresses until, eventually, the privacy right has the weaker claim. It's this last issue that is the most contentious, as most pro-life politicians concede the first two points, but fervently dispute any privacy right. This is why it is much more radical to take the position that the embryo's rights trump every right the mother has, including her right not to suffer the mental anguish of mothering her rapist's child. So, in conclusion, it's not really the case that there is some logical fallacy in being anti-choice with exceptions. It's actually a mirror image of Roe, which is pro-choice with exceptions. ^^Keep in mind that this argument isn't one I'd make because I disagree with it, but if you asked me in Debate Class to argue that it's not logically inconsistent to make exceptions for rape and incest, this would be my argument. On the flip side of that, which is ultimately my own argument, people who make this exception are just exposing why they're against abortion in the first place: to control a woman's sex life and her body. People who make exceptions are like Puritans placing Scarlet Letters on women and shaming them: "Oh, you weren't raped? You [bleep], you can't have an abortion." Still, to say that a woman must carry a rapist's baby to term is beyond your average pro-lifer; it's outright obscene, and even most abortion ban laws don't take it that far (Brazil, for example, makes these exceptions). However, what do we have running for the Senate this year? Extreme pro-rape child Republicans with Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ken Buck of Colorado, Joe Miller of Alaska, Sharron Angle of Nevada, and Christine O'Donnell of Delaware all holding this position. Lulz, no. It'a a fetus. It doesn't even know it exists. However, even if you argue that it has a right to life, I argue that a mother's right to privacy trumps its right to life. Any reason the mother chooses is okay with me during the first and second trimesters; it's her damn body. I'd say that beyond 24 weeks is only ok if there is a complication with the mother's mental or physical health, the baby is going to die, the baby won't live long once it's born, if the baby will be severely physically or mentally handicapped, or if the fetus is already dead. However, though I draw those lines, I don't like the government regulating it because I don't trust America's politicians. They're extremely right-wing, and will do anything they can to limit a woman's choice or make it extremely difficult to get an abortion. Not to mention the fact that there's so few abortion providers in many of the red states (in some of them, there's ONE in the entire state). So I don't support the government making any laws regarding it. It's a decision between the doctor and the woman, period, and the government can get its hands out of it totally. [/hide] Exactly the kind of post I was looking for. Besides, is the embryo even a living being? Hmm, I found an interesting wiki quote regarding this; "Argument from uncertainty Some pro-life supporters argue that if there is uncertainty as to whether the fetus has a right to life, then having an abortion is equivalent to consciously taking the risk of killing another. According to this argument, if it is not known for certain whether something (such as the fetus) has a right to life, then it is reckless, and morally wrong, to treat that thing as if it lacks a right to life (for example by killing it).[57] This would place abortion in the same moral category as manslaughter (if it turns out that the fetus has a right to life) or certain forms of criminal negligence (if it turns out that the fetus does not have a right to life).[58] David Boonin replies that if this kind of argument were correct, then the killing of nonhuman animals and plants would also be morally wrong, because (Boonin contends) it is not known for certain that such beings lack a right to life.[59] Boonin also argues that arguments from uncertainty fail because the mere fact that one might be mistaken in finding certain arguments persuasive (for example, arguments for the claim that the fetus lacks a right to life) does not mean that one should act contrary to those arguments or assume them to be mistaken.[60]"

Wow. "Got raped? Deal with it, life sucks." People like this make me speechless. I'm sorry if you didn't know that "life" for alot of people is actually struggle. Do they decide to give up on it and kill it? Do people that midway gain permanant disabilities decide to just commit suicide? No they don't, many realise how much harder someone else has it and learn to deal with it and continue living. You can't choose the cards you are dealt, but it's your job to make the best out of that hand. Imo no matter who you are, you don't have the right to judge whether someone else should live or die, even if it's your child. So you're implying that even if keeping the child would kill you, you would be morally obliged to keep the child?

The scent. It's like god's gift

The lack of a bump feature on Tif

How does caring about the environment relate to being a meat eater? Unless you're referring to the greenhouse gases impact of raising cattle... Implying that eating meat is bad to your health is just plain wrong. Feel free to prove me wrong

Wow. "Got raped? Deal with it, life sucks." People like this make me speechless. Or just abort the thing.

What about a girl getting raped? Or that carrying the term will cause detrimental health effects to the mother? There are so many scenarios where an abortion may actually be necessary...

The joys of food. I would try the quadruple, tbh. Doubt I'll actually finish it, but I have a pretty large appetite anyway. Hmmm...

The most recent Abortion topic I found was at least 5 months old, so I'm making a new thread on this. To start off, I'm nor Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, as I'm undecided on what my views on Abortion should be. Abortion is such a big subject. Firstly, I'll point out that there's some very extremist anti-abortion activists that do some very stupid things. It's absolutely illogical to try and justify the murder of doctors because they're perceived as 'the killers of the unborn'. Some issues to address: Some questions If you are Pro-Life, would rape/incest count as a exception? If not, why? Does an unborn fetus have a right to life? Under what circumstances would it be okay to abort, and where do you draw the line? Oh, one last thing, don't get too worked up during the debate, I know this is a fragile topic, please keep this appropriate. Discuss!

I agree, but to be a preachy meat-eater is a bit hypocritical if you dislike preachy vegetarians :|

Where does KFC, Subway and Quiznos come in? Pricey but tastes good, plus you usually know what you're eating. Hmm

When you go to the toilet, and find that there isn't any toilet tissue... :ohnoes: "I love you're posts"

My computer is fast enough that there's no visible difference between different browsers. Tests say (tested myself) that Chrome is much faster than Firefox, but I see no difference, because they're both so fast. I'm almost 100% sure that IE9 wouldn't have any visible difference either, though because I usually use Linux, it doesn't really even matter. And I prefer having javascript disabled anyway, because that actually increases the speed. It's probably because you haven't tried a really intensive JavaScript rendering test. Try loading this site in chrome, ff, and IE9: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/AsteroidBelt/Default.html Hmm, might consider it for typeracer, but I don't even hit 200wpm yet, so no point trying. What about Addon's, is IE9 superior to FF in that sense? Google chrome is 'sleek' and fast, not sure why I should switch to IE (also noted for most virus/firewall exploits)

[/hide] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7XDoP22OcI Like that? Yep. Where did you find the vid anyways? I couldn't find it through googling :|