Romy

410...

Again... Blah...

Care to elaborate? There's a lot of personal sacrifice that goes into being a parent. A woman has to carry a child for 9 months and give up a job/put it on hold. Either parent might have to change jobs to get more money. The child has to be fed, driven around, loved and helped when it gets into trouble. It's all done for the child, so in that sense parenthood is selfless.

That's just intolerantive and dumb. I can't believe human beings really believe these things (even if that particular one was a joke, I'm certain some believe it to be atleast partly true). To all you gay haters, here's a question- If you saw any graphical/real gay act, heard of it, or had the ability to perform such acts- Would you become gay? Even the slightest? If your answer is yes- newsflash- you already are gay. I assume most of you would answer with "no", in which case I've got another question- If you wouldn't become gay, what makes you think other straights would? Wow, the irony. You didn't get the point of the picture, didn't you? It's supposed to mean that when gays marry there won't be any negative effect to match the paranoia of society. Think a little bit before you judge a picture on the spot. And what's up with the second question? Well, throughout my gay-propaganda-career I've met some who believe that discussing 'gayness' or enforcing any formal rules to their advantage (such as gay marriage), would cause havoc and chaos and simply make people 'become gay'. Each time I met such opinions I countered them with "Would YOU become gay under these conditions?' and 'Well, if not, what makes you think others will?' As for the picture, I was wrong about that specific one, but the situation exists- Many believe, for some reason, that discussing gayness would 'cause' more gayness.

Thanks for the interesting, long, and detailed opinion <3: ...

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. What do you expect? That human-beings would live on every bit of earth on Earth? Currently, many places are over-populated, no matter what you say. And even if that wasn't the case, who said human-beings must expand? If some magical barrier on mankind amounts existed, and the world's population couldn't exceed it, I'm not sure it would be too bad. As for me being selfless by not having kids, I never said that. I only said that by having kids, you're selfish. How do you expect the human race to survive without kids? 2 things: 1. I never referred to the human race's existence, and never have said or told anyone not to have children. I merely stated my honest opinion, and will do so again for clarification- personaly I think having children is selfish. 2. And if the human race wouldn't exist? Then what? Imagine this picture- a world without the human race. Really, don't go with your sudden urge to comment what I said, take yourself a couple of minutes and imagine the world, without the human race. The only problem I can see occuring is a food-chain mess up (since there wouldn't be many humans to eat the animals) which I'm both pretty sure will solve itself eventualy, and that even if it wouldn't, nature is better off without us. But... We're going OT here, so lets drop that discussion.

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. What do you expect? That human-beings would live on every bit of earth on Earth? Currently, many places are over-populated, no matter what you say. And even if that wasn't the case, who said human-beings must expand? If some magical barrier on mankind amounts existed, and the world's population couldn't exceed it, I'm not sure it would be too bad. As for me being selfless by not having kids, I never said that. I only said that by having kids, you're selfish.

overcrowded. are you SRS. Definitely 100% yes.

Who ever said you will enjoy it? Philosophicly speaking, there's no meaning in life, most of us experience life with some worse and some better times, and eventualy find someone to mate with, have kids, and die. Only so that our kids would have pretty much the same course of life. For some bizzare reason, however, the vast majority wants to live, accomplish meaningless goals (meaningful to them, but overall meaningless) in life, and feel like we've "fulfilled our purpose" in life.

Care to elaborate?

Would you say that not having children is selfish? Would you say having children is selfish? Why? My answer (please do not read until you've posted, I'd love this thread to be as objective and opinion-reflecting as possible): [hide] Personaly I think it is selfish. Breeding is a Biological need, that can only be accomplished by having children. It exists regardless of any economical or mental or emotional problems the parents (or in some cases parent) may have. In addition, most (I say most but really think all, I'll keep it at most as I'm not entirely certain I'm correct) societies, whether modern or primitive, live under a sort of consensus in which having children is one of the most important goals in life, if not THE most important one. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However, it causes a Psychological need to breed aswell, and combined with the Biological one, parents (or a parent) may decide to have children regardless of their(/his/her) conditions. Moreover, the children cannot be asked whether or not they want to be born (both because it's impossible, and because if it was possible, their answer couldn't be an educated one). Personaly, if I had the choice today, I have a strong feeling that I'd say "no" when asked if I want to be born (there's a difference between being born and generaly living. I'd rather not get into it, but if someone will really want that here, I'll explain [i have a strong feeling it's going to be a long argument if I will :???:]). Also, this terrible world is becoming less and less suitable for children. Lastly, you can't ever promise that your sons and daughters won't end up with some extremely horrible lives. [/hide]

Note: I'm not trolling, or being an [wagon] this is a serious post: If I am a Christian... and I believe Gods ok with Homos since, well he makes them, why do you think it is a sin? I mean obviously people get different things from the Bible (thus the need for different denominations) but I'm saying what are your personal views based on what you've garnered from reading it? 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." These are all sinners, yet they are forgiven by God. So while I feel it is wrong, I believe God will be the judge of that, not our government, as I previously stated. And to the argument that God is ok with it because he makes them, that's pretty murky water. God makes serial killers, thieves, and all other perverts too. As a final note, I really hope to not sound preachy. I'm not trying to force my ideas on anyone, just explain my beliefs. He was the same guy that said you can't wear shirts made of more than one material wasnt he? While we're bringing up how people are 'made' lets bring up how they are not made. They're not made with wings so flying should be unnatural. They're not made with a sword or a gun in their hand. They're not made with the information about how to pilot a jet and bomb a city. They're not made able to breather underwater or in space. They're not made to see after dark very well. Damn there's a lot of unnatural sinning going on isnt there? Its all or nothing, if you call one thing out you gotta go all the way. So if homosexuality is unnatural then so is our entire society right down to the light bulb. Amazingly put :D! I applaud you =D> =D> !

Phoenix Odin is currently ranked #1 in Runecrafting, and is missing less than 6M exp to reach the glorious 200M. At the time of writing this, the Highscores show 194,212,178 exp in Runecrafting. Runecrafting, although only brought to the game as a skill along with Modern Runescape, is both F2P and rather old. (It's also currently the only F2P skill in which no one has reached the 200M exp mark as of yet). Now that the achievement is so very close- Your thoughts? [hide=Not confirmed] A friemd of mine claimed that Phoenix Odin is trying to get 500K exp a day in Runecrafting. This is not confirmed though.[/hide]

Note: I'm not trolling, or being an [wagon] this is a serious post: If I am a Christian... and I believe Gods ok with Homos since, well he makes them, why do you think it is a sin? I mean obviously people get different things from the Bible (thus the need for different denominations) but I'm saying what are your personal views based on what you've garnered from reading it? I'd assume it's because the vast majority of the religious whole-heartly trust that it's a matter of choice... For some dumb reason...

That's just intolerantive and dumb. I can't believe human beings really believe these things (even if that particular one was a joke, I'm certain some believe it to be atleast partly true). To all you gay haters, here's a question- If you saw any graphical/real gay act, heard of it, or had the ability to perform such acts- Would you become gay? Even the slightest? If your answer is yes- newsflash- you already are gay. I assume most of you would answer with "no", in which case I've got another question- If you wouldn't become gay, what makes you think other straights would?

Again... Blah...

That was tried in Israel's first days, didn't work out too well. I guess it is a matter of black and white... I disagree about having to negotiate on certain things. I believe discussion should be made regardless of the final results, but negotiation is slightly different, as though different enough to count. Giving up any parts of Jerusalem is discussable, not negotiatable. Also, it's not the same end because- When you agree to sit and negotiate, things can be solved, even if some others wouldn't be (such as the Jerusalem case). When you block negotiation in the name of certain conditions, nothing can be solved. (By the way, as I've already mentioned, the settlements were temporarily frozen, and no negotiations were made).

You probably all know of the "Noobs say the funniest things!" thread in which most of us posted how funny it was when that noob from yesterday thought he could hatch the egg he found in Lumbridge, or figured that following you around would result in a hefty paycheck. However, we all were once noobs, and surely some of us did some embarrasing things back then- So share with us ;)! For example: P.S. If a Mod feels it's too much alike to the "Noobs say the funniest things!" thread, feel free to lock.

390!

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. They're newcomers and are doing their best at advancing through whatever the hell they think could work. I remember myself on the first 2 weeks or so of my Runescape career, and how I was amazed to have found a nature rune and a brass necklace- For some reason I was certain I found some very rare items for which I could get a very nice sum of money; I even declined when someone offered me 1K for my dear nature rune, lol.

I think you didn't quite understand what pre-conditions to negotiations mean- It means that one side sets certain conditions for which the other side can either agree on, or never ever negotiate with the other side. Although I'm 100% certain Israel wouldn't give up on any parts of Jerusalem, it has not set it as a term to start negotiating, i.e. Israel did not declare that it's either the other side agrees on forgetting about Jerusalem, or no discussion can be made.

How is it irrelevant? Exactly what I was going to ask. Why is East Jerusalem considered a special case for exemption in the peace negotiations? It shouldn't be. Jerusalem was still the capital of Israel before Israel took East Jerusalem in 1967. Jerusalem can and would still be Israel's capital without East Jerusalem. Hence, saying it is the capital of Israel is not relevant in the wider context of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. It's still valid, you seem to be missing the point. Jerusalem, and not a part of Jerusalem, Jerusalem as a whole, is Israel's capital city, no other. Also, unlike the illegal settlements, Jerusalem is a perfectly legal part of Israel- which means that whether you find it okay or not doesn't matter, Israel is not and cannot be forced to give up any parts of it's capital city.