Romy

now here is an idea that i think it decent, still i love to see all the level 93 slayers who cant manage to get a fire cape XD its kinda sad tbh seeing as he has been killed in 6 seconds w/o pray switching Its also possible to solo the corp and how many people actually do that? And i'm 94 slay with almost max stats besides pray. And it is imposible for me to kill jad. Its not that i'm lazy or don't like fight caves, Its actually my second favorite minigame, it is literally impossible for me to kill him. The reson why is because of my internet conncection. The only, ONLY, conection that i can get out here is satalite and because of that there is a time delay from when i see or hear his attack to when i switch prayers. Because of that no matter what i do it is impossible for me to actually protect against one of his attacks unless it is through sheer dumb luck that i pick the right prayer. Having an item as a requirement that is impossible for some people to get simply because of where they live is a dumb idea. Like others have said you could have an enchanted fire tiara, like the enchanted water tiara, that uses runes to protect against ice ( might even be usable for ancient spells or wyverns but thats another topic), fire gloves, ring of fire, heck even an adze could be used, or simply a dumbed down version of the fire cape that degrades and can only be bought with tokuul so that it still introduces people to the fight caves. What i would personally like to see happen is have an area efect in the icewyrm caverns similair to the desert or the snow areas near gwd that does minor damage and reduces a random stat slowly over time. a fire cape would nullify that effect and make it easier to kill them but slayers who have not gotten it could still kill them but require more work. Or maybe people should just accept that some content is aimed at those who excel in patience and perseverance, some updates are aimed towards those with reflexes and timing, and some updates require both. It's not the end of the world. People who have the patience for 93 slayer but not the ability to kill Jad are no more meant to be able to kill Ice Strykewyrms than someone with no patience to train slayer but the the ability to beat Jad. Instead of adding more excuses to the mountain of "reasons we can't beat Jad", just get over yourselves. Ice Strykewyrms wasn't meant for slayer, it was meant for slayer who ALSO have the abilities to handle fight caves. Jad's been beaten before without prayer-switching (through multiple strategies), Jad's been beaten despite horrible lag, Jad's been beaten by low and high levels alike. People can be so hypocritical. They demand content for experienced players, citing their own favorite skills and their own levels of play, and when an update is beyond their own reach, they come up with every reason to try to lower the difficulty... I agree.

overcrowded. are you SRS. Definitely 100% yes. Wow lol. Thats kind of ignorant. We have so much of the world left. You really honestly believe you're being selfless not having kids? Thats pretty messed up. Agreed. The world isn't overpopulated at all - its an excuse made up by people too selfish to admit the real problem: wealth distribution. And yes, I think not having kids is selfish...sometimes. I can accept that not everyone is meant to have kids, some people just won't make good parents, or have other priorities, etc. But I do think people who get married(in my mind putting themselves into a prime child-raising environment) are selfish to not have kids. Look at what they say: "I want to enjoy my own life, I don't want kid's to ruin it." That's pretty selfish to me - having children is the greatest gift and the most selfless on anyone can give to the world. I just started writing something else, and realized there's no way I'm going to convince you. Nevermind.

So if someone is handicapped they should be treated same as everyone else? Equality does NOT mean everyone is treated the same way, it means that those who are not equal receive certain benefits to make them as equal as possible (for an extreme example, a student without hands should be given a sort of help with his homework or with exams and such, a sort of help that other students do not receive). The thing is though, this can be taken to far. Take African Americans for example - they're now equal under the eyes of the law and have equal opportunities for healthcare, security, work, education, literally everything. Sure, it's OK if you want to help disadvantaged black people get a place in a univeristy or whatever, but the same should apply to any disadvantaged person, no matter what skin colour they are. That's the point I think Serephurus was really trying to get at. That's not taking it too far, that's taking it the wrong way...

You could add the cat-award-amulet-thingy for hunting over 100 rats (recieved from Gertrude).

So if someone is handicapped they should be treated same as everyone else? Equality does NOT mean everyone is treated the same way, it means that those who are not equal receive certain benefits to make them as equal as possible (for an extreme example, a student without hands should be given a sort of help with his homework or with exams and such, a sort of help that other students do not receive).

Don't the majority of births occur for those who seek to give birth? And not by 'mistake'?

Ants and whales couldn't decide to though.

410..

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature? That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind. I want to smack your for posting that. You could not debate a topic like that, because humans are nature, and you're an idiot if you think otherwise. Nature can hurt nature, but most of the time it makes up for itself. That's not saying that everything is natural though. I agree that techinically we are nature. What I meant by debating whether or not humans are a part of nature is that we're so far beyond nature, and we hurt nature in so many ways, that one could debate whether we still are a part of nature. In my opinion, even though we originated from nature, we shouldn't see ourselves as a part of it. No need to get overexcited. As for nature making up for itself, just like Fakeitormakeit2 said, humans could destroy nature easily, and I'm pretty sure nature couldn't make up for itself after that.

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature? That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind. The point is that normally such arguments place humankind outside of nature. And again you pick one part and disregard the rest, I said we have dominion over everything because we advanced to a point in which we are basically stronger then everything else and we could destroy everything if we wanted. So please, point out to me, where did I say we are unable to harm nature because we are part of nature? I was stating I'm sick of a cliche, don't assume things. So if I disagree with you I must disagree with every single thing you said? That makes no sense to me... I found your nature comment wrong, and simply replied to it. Also, no, you never said that nature couldn't hurt nature. However, what you did say is "Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature." and as a response to me saying that nature could be better off without us. I think any person with a healthy mind could understand that you meant we couldn't be bad to nature because we are nature. Lastly, about the dominant part of nature- A. And if we are (and we are) so what? B. Humans techinically have that ability, yes. However, the human race wouldn't survive too long after doing that (we wouldn't have any animals to feed on, we'll miss the air (as there are no plants if we destroyed everything), I'd assume many other recources would be destroyed in the process aswell, etc).

But the same can be said for the pros. Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows. But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else. This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think... I don't believe that matters. As I had already stated- the bottom line is that if religion didn't exist, same would (obviously) go to the religion's cons. What you seem to have missed, is that I specificly stated that my opinion on religion is that it's cons overcome it's pros. Also- 1. You can't ever know if your theory is correct. 2. If it is correct, it's possible that it would exist to a lesser extent (for instance, it's like the difference between religion and ideology. Both are built on certain rules and guidelines, but religion's rules cannot be streched, and the religious perspective is always more extreme (because if God exists, his decisions are to be taken and embraced whole-heartly, while your idelogoy can be changed based on logic, etc)). 3. You guys are basing your points on a cartoon? All it can reflect is the cartoonist's opinions, nothing else.

I'm outnumbered :blink: !

[hide] http://progressiverealist.org/blogpost/retractionist-retentionist-discourse-israel [/hide] The problem with this article is that the author decided it's either a Jewish country or a Democratic one, and that's where he (/she?) leads his (/her...) points from. It's a delicate situation, I agree, but with good reasons and relatively not a bad outcome. You see, the state of Israel was established so that the Jews of the world could have a home after much hatred and antisemitism pointed towards them. That necessarily means that the country must have Jewish values and symbols (the national anthem, the flag, the vast majority of the population, etc). But, how can a country both relate to a very specific religion and at the same time be Democratic? That's where the problem comes from. Personaly, I believe the "solution" turned out fine considering the above. Israel is a Jewish country, with Jewish values and symbols, and at the same time allows Arab and Palestinian Political Parties (even ones that want it's downfall, unfortunately...), and acknowledges it's Arab citizens perfectly fine. So, yes, it's very difficult to maintain a Democratic country that relates to one very specific religion and follows many of it's values devotely, but I believe Israel managed a good solution.

Even then it's people taking it way too far that would make the cons. Set of beliefs that define how one should live a moral life? Good. Set of beliefs that one should use to live a moral life that are then abused by corrupt organizations/individuals? Bad. Hey, just like politics! It doesn't matter. Bottom line is - the cons exist because religion exists. Period.

If you said the first two lines of that to the gay people I'm friends with they would rip you to shreds (verbally, not physically... although some of them may [female dog]-slap you a bit). As for the comment about religion - that is such a ridiculous generalisation. Sure, you only have to look at The Crusades to realise that religion can and does cause trouble, but it also brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people. Whilst not being religious myself I listen to a few Christian bands, mewithoutYou in particular, and I can't relate to some of the lyrics but I like hearing how passionate they are about religion and how the thought of God fills them with joy. It's not all trouble-causing and gay-bashing. Religion is not ALL bad, but personaly I think the world could be better off without it. It has it's "cons & pros", and personaly I think the cons overcome the pros (by far).

Guys, just as mods pointed before- The guy is not here to defend himself so please do not discuss his personal life (of which you know nothing).

Who are you to decide for them? Just because you think living together is enough, doesn't mean everyone else agrees. I don't know about you, but if I were gay I believe I'd want to marry just as much as I do as a straight. As for your religion comment. Personaly I agree, but I'm also practical and know it's not going to happen.

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature? That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind.

We are nature. I'm so sick and tired of this cynical "oh the human race is so baaad" bull [cabbage]. Next time you see a bear, let it eat you, since obviously humans are soooo aaaawfulllll. This whole topic is just silly. Having children is in no way silly. We're so much [bleep]ing better than everything else on the world, we've figured out how to have sex without having children - by choice. And that kicks [wagon]! There are plenty of people who will have kids, and plenty who won't. Most people will, when they feel ready. And the very fact that we have the ability to feel ready is magic in itself. [bleep] opposable thumbs - we get to choose when we have kids. Where was I going with all this ... ? We go to war, we trash nature regularly, hunt animals for fun, for clothes, and for food, test perfumes and medicine on animals, pollute oceans and the air around us, and the list goes on. What I was trying to say is not that humans are "soooo aaaawfulllll" only that Earth could do better without us, as a response to someone asking me how I expect the human race to survive. (I answered with A. I never told anyone not to have children, only that I think it's selfish, and B. That I'm not sure a world without the human race would be that bad.)

I read the above... and unfortunately, even though it's very interesting, I doubt it's going to change anyone's opinions towards gays. :(