Assume Nothing

The people against gambling are either the ones who didn't know when to stop and got cleaned or the ones who've never tried it. How can Jagex say don't gamble and yet support the duel arena and other methods? Jagex has said not to participate in these because they allow for too many scams. It should be realised that no amount of punishment or dis-encouragement would be very effective at attempting to 'correct' consensual forms of emergent gameplay - the incentive of the adrenaline rush and the feeling of financial freedom overwhelms the suggested fear of punishment, as the risk is simply outweighed. I firmly stand by the position where the implementation of a 'legalized', regulated form of gambling which cannot be influenced by the player would be most optimal, as it resolves the associated issues of the activity without the compromise to gameplay (lost development time, unfair removal of the genuine uses of the tools, etc.) On a slightly related note, if JaGex's sole objective of removing 'gambling' is to simply prevent scamming, then why can't they implement an escrow feature onto trading practices and gambling activities? GrapplingIgnorance presents a decent analogy to here, despite being unrelated to RuneScape; It's frustrating to see that JaGex fails to tackle the core issues, and rather focus on the superficial problems that only has short-term effects.

I've said worse. I'm surprised I haven't been suspended from school for it too.

The sudden realization that one has not backed up one's files on one's hard-disk. A small anecdote here: I was left frantically scrambling in an attempt to recall my bookmarks and programs (I have no files to speak of that needed backing up) when my computer presumably overheated and fried itself from losing power whilst installing 'essential' windows updates. I think I should purchase an external-harddrive, this is starting to trouble me more than its worth.

The emergence of black-markets will probably occur soon enough. I hope JaGex realises this isn't the effective way of correcting market failure.

Oh great. So whilst discussion is limited, the implications of religion still prevails. I'd like to see at least a single refute to initiate some dispute though.

Duff/Y_Guy - do you guys have any particular opinions on this?

The lack of activity after composing long posts - why?!

Oh, and more videos [hide] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs [/hide]

I think I may have to post an edit later, as it's so long that it's actually difficult to revise what's written and it's legibility. I realise that a lot of the above is paraphrasing others, as I feel their points have been articulated very well. If theists are willing to watch some of these videos, it should provide some insight into atheistic views. [hide] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JLfKbrwMvM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpz8PMcRJSY [/hide]

Religion isnt harmless it stops us doubting. It stops people thinking and questioning reality. The presence of God and his assumed communications is too often cited as justification for immoral actions. Children are indoctrinated at a young age, not at a choice of their own, but at the bidding of their parents. Children arent taught to question reality instead, theyre taught to fear the wrath of the supposedly omnibenevolent deity with threats of eternal torture if they defy the teachings. What makes religious beliefs so unique is that it attempts to manifest itself into the logical centres of the brain, by compounding relatively harmless activities as sin evident in commandments such as thou shall not covet, or the insistence that homosexuality and masturbation is morally incorrect. Our societies ostracize those who dont want to believe in a God, or the same belief as their God, under the false pretence of committing the supposedly morally righteous act of saving someone an action directly influenced by their belief. It seems hypocritical that those who preach the followings of Jesus morality would breach their very own guidelines they impose on non-believers/believers of other religions. Its often cited that a life without God is sad and depressing, or that an atheist life is meaningless used as a common defence in support of a religious lifestyle. It should be noted that this is not true, as life has no more meaning than one attributes to it. The meanings to life are not inherent. The benefits of an atheistic lifestyle are that we can be accepting of others without the compulsion to question anothers beliefs, and to be open to all ideas for discussion and debate. Atheists can choose to study sciences without feeling like defying Gods intentions which comes with the extra baggage of theists feeling guilt. To be charitable, an atheist shows a respect for those in greater need out of their own sense of good-will, as opposed to attempting to appease a deity. The theists Ive encountered often argue that without Gods support, they would lose their sense of morality. My response is that of sincere concern, as it seems to imply that they dont understand the concept of morality, and as their religious teachings assert that morals are God-given, without a God therell be no morals. The function of morality is to allow each-other to coexist peacefully and optimally, by agreeing that ones actions affect one another (positively and negatively) and therefore we ought to be concerned about the welfare of others. I personally dislike the notion of absolute morality, as it prevents people from making decisions in the context of a scenario to act in the most optimal way possible commandments such as thou shall not lie may stop a theist from protecting individuals such as in a holocaustic situation if one was hiding individuals of persecution. You may be presented with an argument which takes the form of Pascals wager often, where the theist asserts that if youre wrong about the assertion that there is no God, youve got everything to lose because of the damnation to hell but if youre right about the assertion that there is no God, then nothing happens as youre just dead. However, if youre right about the assertion that there is a God, then youve got everything to gain as you would be sent to heaven but if youre wrong, then youve got nothing to lose as youre dead anyway. This form of argument is flawed in a multitude of ways; its a false dichotomy between the notion that one must either Choose God or Reject God. A problem occurs when you realise that belief is not a choice - its a compulsion to accept what one deems to be true on the basis of evidence, convincing arguments and trust. If it were a choice, then the choices must be presented clearly if one could doubt if an option even exists, then its no longer a choice. The assertion that atheism is the rejection of God is also flawed, as disbelief is not rejection its scepticism on the basis that there is a lack of evidence, and there are an overwhelming number of discrepancies/inconsistencies within religious doctrines. On a more relevant note, the notion that theists would lose nothing to falsely believe is also a flawed if this is the one and only life, then every moment spent worshipping/praying to a God, and every dime spent in deference to a God is wasted. Furthermore, even if we assume that believers went to heaven it would have to assume that the God is silly enough to buy into the covering ones ass belief in him, which is absurd as anything that may qualify for a God should have no trouble distinguishing the genuineness of their beliefs. Even if we further assume that the God would buy into the covering ones ass thing it neglects the possibility that Christian believers would not avoid the heavens and hells of other religions if they were wrong about them, as all theists are atheists to other religions. On a slightly digressive side note, its possible that there exists a perverse God who only sends atheists to heaven a situation where theists actually lose in the case of believing in a God. Pascals Wager also implies that the best choice for a religion would be that of a demonic deity with the worse punishments for blasphemy, and the best bribes for blind faith. Is this really optimal? An additional problem with the notion that theists lose nothing is the fact that theistic beliefs cause harm by influencing individuals to make irrational decisions such as to ostracize and discriminate against those not of the same mind-set, to oppress scientific/medical developments, to encourage ineffective faith healing, to endorse abusive indoctrination of young children, etc. as highlighted in the first paragraph. If the theist was right and the portrayal of God was Biblically accurate, then theyd gain everything but the possibility of the assertion holding true seems weak at best, as they defy the physical laws that we observe around us, with no evidence to hold for the assertions that a God exists, and its the Biblical portrayal which is accurate. The theist may ask; If God(s) doesnt exist, then why is there Holy Scriptures? The answer is simple; as humans, we crave authority. In the lack of an authority where societies run amok, religions facilitated a function to keep people inline. The presence of the many religious scriptures can be explained by the compulsion of mankind to invent religions and associated deity(s), with ancient writings passed down as a Holy Scripture. I believe a personal God is the manifestation of ones ego, which explains the strikingly similar intuitions and opinions of God to those of the self, but a theist can claim to disagree with another theist who worships the same God. I believe we can improve our society if we thoroughly examined, scrutinized, and questioned our beliefs - and to be informed about the effects of our actions. I believe the socially optimal stance would be to raise a society with many secular humanists. I believe religion has become redundant, and we ought to raise our children irreligiously, giving them a choice of religious participation at their own discretion. I believe that as a society, we shouldnt fear we should doubt. If we question and find supported answers, then we build knowledge. Doubt is the missing ingredient of religion. In an attempt to induce discussion, heres a small mind-game: if God heals those who pray to become better, then why are there no statistical variation for survival rates of Christian believers? Why is there world hunger, and why doesnt God heal amputees? How is God merciful and just, if mercy entails not acting on the basis of moral righteousness, therefore a direct contradiction of the assertion that God is just? How do religious beliefs benefit an individual in a way that secular communities cant, except for reasons cited within the purported Holy Bible? How is free will and Gods divine plan compatible? I do realise that I may have confused theism with Christianity its simply convenient because Christianity encompasses a vast majority of western religious believers, therefore more pertinent to the discussion. Feel free to comment. This took a while to type.

I've got two questions; Is it better to live in a comforting lie, or is it better to live with an ugly truth? How would you prefer to die?

It's actually pretty natural if you have a tendency to say things faster than you can think things through. If I was forced to make a hasty yet comprehensive reply; I'd probably post someone rather asinine to later realise the foolishness and be forced to edit it. I hate when people quote my mistakes though, since I can no longer eradicate it.

Drama.

I've learnt that the place I live in had four tenants commit suicide within the last 3 years. Is this a bad thing? I don't know. It's a good thing this apartment is packed with people though. I'd be scared if it had any less tenants.

There's your problem.

It's not actually legal tender with that many pennies, so if that lady refused you, you would've been stuffed. Is there any reason for pennies to continue to exist? It doesn't serve its supposedly primary purpose; to facilitate as a medium for trade.

You don't need to get into extremes of drinking to do yourself some harm; an unwise choice about unprotected sex may get you herpes for life.

To have strong passion for their subject/career/beliefs - i.e. to show that they actually care enough about their beliefs or current affairs, and illustrating their passion in their particular field of work or study shows a level of intelligence. I find it extremely difficult to converse with someone who frankly doesn't have a damn clue what you care about, or talk about, or even what they care about. It's awkward for both parties when a girl fakes a smile/laugh, too. Air-headedness is one of the most immediate turnoffs I can think of, short of being a dude - and it's easy to give the wrong impression by overusing text-speak, which I frankly find annoying. If fitting the dumb-blonde stereotype knocks down someone's physical attractiveness by a few notches, the opposite would happen if they fit a smart girl stereotype. I think the limits on this would be difficult to establish though, since being overly devout may give the impression of arrogance instead. A positive energy/vibe is a must; Who wants to talk to a girl who always seems like she's got the sads? It's frankly depressing and simply an exploitation of human empathy in all honesty. Absolutely no drama, and to adopt the realist philosophy; The epitome of relationship struggles almost certainly involves a level of dramatization. It may be for the attention that ultimately ensues, but one could only speculate. If the girl has anger issues; consult a psychiatrist. It's a simple no to me. I'd say that adopting the realist philosophy by being completely realistic about expectations is essential for life in general; it's better to expect and prepare for the worse, where everything more is a bonus as opposed to be disappointed when life shows them that life is a [bleep] with the inflated expectations. This point goes hand in hand with having the sads, as mentioned above. To be a good listener, as opposed to being the reverse stereotype; I think it's important in any meaningful relationship that both participants are good listeners. It's often an overlooked aspect, and some girls feel an overwhelming sense of entitlement to be the dominant partner. To not be an overindulgent brat (is there a better way to phrase this...?); To have an appreciation and respect for items given out of courtesy, as opposed to only caring about the monetary value of the gifts. It's unrealistic to expect all expenses paid lavish restaurants, cinemas, pubs and shops. It's important to show that one cares enough that the girl would fork some money over too. If that's impossible, then maybe it's near the tipping point of a financially abusive relationship (I presume this is without a prior agreement). No gossip; It's frustrating to see intricate details of one's personal life (whether true or false) posted jokingly on Facebook, or any other social media. It doesn't even matter if it goes word of mouth; It's grossly insensitive and simply deplorable. Confidence; If you don't have any to initiate discussion, that's okay, I can empathize. If you don't have any throughout an entire relationship, or during a long discussion, then there's a problem. To be real; Just to elaborate on the point brought up earlier, I can list several things that I often see girls doing: overusing makeup in a way that hides their true beauty, adopting a fake persona in an attempt to converse with someone, to be pretentious or conceited in a vain attempt to look 'smart', to be attention whorish (more annoying than fake, but still), to falsely suggest sensitivity, enjoyment, and respectfulness, etc. I don't think there's anything much more frustrating than to learn that your friend/partner only pretended to be a person that they weren't; it just says to me 'The person who you thought you connected is a fabricated perception, and nothing more' Empathy; We're all human, and we all mess up - there's no doubt about it. An important thing that many people fail to do is to gain a level of understanding in the relationship; it's more important to overcome an obstacle than to be stifled and trapped in the idea of failure. Compassion is similar. To have few or no anxieties, fears, insecurities, etc; I think this goes hand in hand with self-esteem and self-confidence. To reiterate the point above; It seems almost pointless to even converse with a girl with the sads. I think the physical aspects to be extremely easy to decipher; You'd either like flat stomachs or muscular stomachs, hourglass shaped or pear shaped bodies, big busts or small busts, curly hair or smooth hair, etc. I see it as superficial to judge a girl as a person, and as a potential date on the basis of looks. This isn't to say that it ought to be disregarded, but I feel too many people take beauty too far and don't bring enough to the table after initiating discussion. I personally prefer the girl next door look as opposed to the porn-star look, but I understand this is a matter of personal taste. Ultimately, a girl with looks but an abrasive personality just won't suffice. It goes beyond the realm of sexual attraction; it's the psychological, emotional attraction that's truly appealing. I could write an entire essay on the subject, but I think it may be a good idea to end now. How do you guys feel about it? EDIT - Heh, just a page back I could see the stark contrast between my perceptions of women. It's funny how time changes everything. EDIT II - I've tried to make this post a little more coherent. I'll continue doing so later.

... it's relevant to both threads, dammit.

I pass judgement on the basis of objective reasons against drinking beyond moderation (which may account for excessive and or binge drinking). The position he upholds isn't mine, please don't confuse them. I think I'm watching too many anti-atheist, fundamentalist Christian videos and they're slightly annoying me now. I almost feel like posting a ton of comments, but I'm reminded that Youtube has perhaps one of the worst communities on the internet. Video in reference; Hmm EDIT - I've found a beautiful quote in the video that pretty much sums up fundamentalist Christian philosophy; "So you think that if nobody believed in any religion, that there'd be no wars or fighting? I think it would be worse, I think it would be way worse. I know that if I didn't have God's judgement to fear, I would've killed many, many times."

Why don't you want your face scented? Slightly related; Girls who put too much lipstick on.

That pretty much sums up most of my classmates. Losing one's inhibitions and making irrational (harmful) decisions isn't exactly wise, and the benefits just don't pay off. I've never understood the drinking culture; Why is there a social stigma attached to drinking in moderation?

I hate it when I feel so naive at a bar in terms of what drinks to order. Vodka and coke tastes like poison. I'm not doing that again.

It may or may not be a good idea to get a haircut. It annoys me more when that said hair brings shampoo into the eyes, or when it irritates the eyes coupled with hayfever. It's like acid; it burns.

What the hell? Santa has nothing to do with religion, it's an invention by Coca-Cola to sell more during the christmas period. Jesus isn't Santa. Also, please stop with the religion debate, isn't there a thread for it? It's analogous of what atheists perceive to be nothing more than superstition invented by man to control man. Religious followers do all sorts of immoral deeds in the name of their deity; from mild discrimination to suicide bombings. It annoys me that religious beliefs are used as a way to rationalize their actions. EDIT - I think I'll post in it a little later, but it's a little dead as of late. It's disappointing to try to initiate a discussion for there to be no response.