Assume Nothing

I don't think I've reached the drunken stage on the internet yet. I do realise that I post less coherently when having a drink, but I've never had a problem with spelling/typos unless the chatting platform is very spontaneous. I do happen to write the complete opposite of what I'm saying at that state though, with 'typos' that could literally be the inverse of what I intend to say (unfortunately, I cannot think of any good examples). On a more relevant note: I've been having a lazy day today. I was as productive as a brick wall for the past 3 days.

Ebay watched items reminder: Why tell me the listing is ending soon if it has ended 5 hours ago?

If love exists who cares about age:o The age discrepancy is still relevant if we're talking about minors or those with significant age differences (e.g. 18 year old girl with an 80 year old man).

Could we stop projecting our personal levels of satisfaction achieved through polyamorous/monogamous relationships? It's a subjective value judgement that's highly dependent on individual circumstances and such. It's fallacious to claim that all monogamous relationships (long-term) would achieve less overall happiness/satisfaction than long-term polyamorous relationships, simply because it's dependent on our personal philosophies/moral values.

I don't think they lack the ability to type when drunk, but rather - they lack the ability to care.

I ought to clarify; when I use the term just, I mean it as 'only' - in the context that they merely committed a homicide, as opposed to committing genocide or mass murder/killings.

On a slightly unrelated note, I've got a question - If capital punishment is too severe for 'just' murderers, how about convicted terrorists or similar?

It's the standard JaGex copout: 'It wasn't in the spirit of the game'.

Banned for rambling incoherently.

What's your point? The 'proper' method is repetitive, mundane, and uninteresting. Why should it be compulsory to train a skill a specific way?

I didn't know effigies had the intellectual capacity to not be 'stupid'.

What defines how RuneScape is 'supposed' to be played? The game isn't linear, so there's no real method that the game is 'supposed' to be played, except the notion that players should be playing legitimately - i.e. without bots or other third-party aids that could pose an unfair advantage. Effigies are merely an alternative method of training - I hold no qualms against it. JaGex isn't wrong when they say that it may be deemed unfair that people can attain high skill levels without actually training or participating in the skills they're leveling, but it fails to justify their actions. The changes in effigies are not necessitated, and honestly causes more harm to the game than it benefits. To reiterate points made previously by other users: The way to combat this isn't to significantly nerf the oversight; rather, the more beneficial choice would be to give players an incentive to partake in the skill itself as opposed to relying on effigies. Why must skills be so repetitive, mundane and menial? It's the core of a myriad of problems.

Inept customer support. It's frustrating that some companies take 2 hours to write a poorly thought out response that should take 20 seconds. On a completely unrelated note: I'm wondering - do fat people have higher chances of survival during a big flood due to having greater buoyancy?

There's a flaw with that; It could be taken the wrong way.

Okay, I'll completely rephrase it: What's the most effective methods in the art of flirting?

None of the above. What are the alternatives?

On the topic of flirting: is it better to compliment girls based on their appearance, or would it be better to compliment girls based on their intellectual prowess?

That's merely an unsubstantiated assumption.

How do you equate 'parents shouldn't present opinion as fact' to 'I know better than you'? Granted, even if it's true, it bares no weight to discredit my argument at all. You've responded to my post with 'from your next sentence,' so quote me. I'm not doing the back-tracing when you're referring to something obscure that's not even relevant. You're accusing me of bigotry, huh? How very ironic of you. It seems that you're the one who's incapable of even considering my position. Surely, that's the very definition of bigotry/arrogance, is it not? Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Your posts are a nice attempt at argument, but it's nothing more than that. It's facile, meaningless diatribe. Do you think these semantic word games really support your position? The only one professing moral supremacy here is yourself. Who's arrogant now?

Banned for providing an irrelevant reason.

You've deliberately misconstrued my positions. Congratulations on the straw man argument. I don't think parents should present their beliefs to be facts - it's still an opinion that requires being substantiated by argument. I don't feel all religion is detrimental to the world, where did you even get that from? The most popular religions certainly have adverse effects, but I like how you're exaggerating it. I've never professed that I'm intellectually superior, either. I like how you're only here to critique me rather than my position. It's laughable how hypocritical you are. On a slightly unrelated note, I like how you assert that I'm somehow closed minded, when you're intolerant to even consider my position to be valid. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

I'm not from the US, but I do have my concerns regarding the actions and decisions of those in the US. The socio-political influence is rather profound in the western world. @sees: What's your point? Does that somehow discredit my argument? I take little notice of assertions that have no weight - try padding it out with reasoning of why my argument fails (if that's your position), and we can initiate a discussion. It's going nowhere right now.

You always are. Banned for implying that you're old.

I'm not sure if that's criticism, but okay.

If it doesn't harm others or infringe on other peoples rights, and its not harming you in a way that is going to cost other people money, I generally don't see the harm. Practicing religion goes beyond the miracles and parables of the purported Jesus of Nazareth. It extends to who the adherents should trust, which groups to distrust and ostracize, which political alignment adherents should adopt, which laws should be passed, which parts of the educational curriculum to alter or remove, etc. It's these actions, influenced primarily by religious teachings, that are harmful to not only those outside the clique of religious following, but to themselves too. It may not be realised, but it limits their own happiness and thus it becomes a compromise of religiously derived happiness with happiness from wellbeing and general satisfaction. It does infringe on other people's rights, in many cases. It infringes privacy rights to knock on doors to proselytize those who don't want to. It infringes educational rights to remove sciences from the school curriculum. It infringes our rights when public prayers are held. I see problems even by replacing genuine generosity with generosity in fear of a God, to do so only to appease an 'almighty' being. If practicing religion were like believing in Santa, leprechauns or any other frivolous fairy-tale, then I'd have little contempt for it. The startling truth is, it's weaved into almost every aspect of society where there's no escape from it, and its harmful to not only individuals, but society in a multitude of ways. It's morally impermissible to knowingly allow this to continue, yet it does. Why?