Jonanananas

That's a bit of a pointless question, isn't it? I'd weigh the benefits of paying an extra 22k per year versus my expected income from completing my degree. I'd also look to transfer elsewhere for a cheaper alternative, if it existed. I might be upset with my university, but an absurd reaction would be to lash out at some arbitrary third party. I also wouldn't be selfish enough to think that someone else should pay for it instead of me. Except they're not expecting someone else to pay off their education. When you subsidize education, you are investing in the students who will go on to work higher paying jobs, pay more taxes, and pay for their tuition by subsidizing the next generation of students. It's a much better system than making students come out of university with 100k+ in debt. The only people who benefit from that are the banks. Is your system better? Can you find evidence that Canadian graduates are more productive than American graduates? What about against students that take out loans and support themselves through college? From my experience, students that are given a free ride (or very cheap one at that) tend to change their majors more, graduate on time less, and take college less seriously (like flunk out or party more). For example, each of my siblings has had to pay for their own schooling. The four of us so far have all (or will have) graduated on time. The two that have graduated already have jobs and aren't unemployed or living at home. Compare that to several of our friends whose parents are footing the bill, who have changed their majors, flunked out, or changed their schools. Some even have graduated and moved straight into their parent's basement. http://www.theclause.org/2012/04/4158/ Also, my tuition has increased by about $1000 / year since I started. You can bridge that gap by working a couple weeks at a summer internship. I don't know about that. I can see the logic behind that, but on the other hand, here in Germany we pay very few tuiton fees (usally a maximum of 1000 per year, often less). And I don't think German students are particularly lazy, or at least not more than others. The main reason why I personally dislike tuition fees is that I think everyone should have the same chances for education, yet with high tuition fees those coming out of poor families have a lot less chance to actually pull it off.

Not another one of those clues -.- I find them to be pretty stupid...

Oh cmon, the game itself is actually quite fun, it just needs a few tweaks to make it worthwhile. This update could be just that.

The exact same thing can be said of religion... Religions aren't all the same, Christians aren't all the same, Christian Protestants aren't all the same. Stop generalizing. What is an actual issue is a tendency we have to impose our values upon others; this is unrelated to religion (you're a pretty good example). :thumbup: That's what I meant.

If you regard pure atheism, as in the pure conviction that gods don't exist, then I can see where you're coming from. But that's somewhat ignoring the reality of it, because that conviction somewhat entails that you know better than others(theists).

I know. Would have mentioned that but I had to leave. I'm pretty sure it's Renly, and he's just saying it to justify his own lack of a claim. Heh, I'm rereading it atm (reaching the end of game of thrones atm) so if I stumble upon it, I'll let you know ;)

I don't see how you can simply claim that. I also wouldn't really call someone opposed to other religions but their own anti-theistic. An islamist might be opposed to christianity just as an anti-theist might be, but they have two completely different kinds of motivation that you can't really compare.

Which only supports my argument... why exactly does Robert have such a huge following? Or rather, why did they choose Robert to lead the rebellion despite Ned Stark or Jon Arryn having stronger share of their forces? Oh right, because he had the best claim to the throne. Another factor is Dorne. Dorne thinks they have the power to overthrow the Throne (and probably do, remember they were only subdued due to dragons but even then they weren't fully invaded). Why are they or their leader, at least, so hell bent on finding Daenerys (w/ zero knowledge of the dragons) first rather than just kill their way to the throne? Especially when they have reasons for revenge against the Lannisters? But yeah Langzor, there's no blood or lineage theme in the series at all. None. Ummm, where is the part where it's explained that Robert got his support because he had Targaryen blood? I've never even remotely read anything like that to my memory. They chose Robert, or rather Robert chose himself, because he was a fierce warrior, first to openly rebel against Aerys. Unless I missed a big part of the book... And I've never claimed that lineage doesn't help. Of course it does. And military power to conquer your enemies isn't enough, you obviously have to have enough to control the country afterwards as well. I'm just saying that asoiaf doesn't buy into the typical cliché "and it turns out he's secretly the heir to the throne and now everyone kneels to him" you see in other fantasy (as in e.g. memory,sorrow and thorn, partly in the lord of the rings)

You can claim things all you want, but that doesn't make them true. There's enough incentive for atheists to oppose theists. Just like you, they might see the negative sides that religion has. Thus, they decide they need to do what's possible to rid humanity of that. There you go, anti-theism. And if you define atheists as "only those who simply disbelieve in a god but are not anti-religion"...you're distinguishing between those and anti-religion atheists....yet you don't do that for theists and fundamentalists. You're applying double standards.

Controlling King's landing is not enough to control the kingdom...If Tywin had a reasonable chance of becoming King, he would've seized it. But no one but Lannisters would have supported him and eventually, he would have succumbed to Robert, who by now has a huge following because he just defeated the army of the last king and liberated the country from his grip. Lannisters also exactly didn't make friends with the way they took King's Landing. And I'm not saying that blood lines are completely irrelevant, because obviously some people do care, and those who do have a legitimate claim to the throne have bigger chances of getting it than those who don't at all. But that doesn't make the latter impossible, and more importantly, it doesn't *actually* mean that someone has a right to the throne or that he will do better as a king. GRRM is more than well aware of that and this series won't end with the one with the best claim getting the throne just because of that. Possibly as a part of it, but by far not enough on its own. On the same page, that purple-haired guy will not just become king because of who he is. His claim might help, but that's about it. And if the series did end this way, GRRM would pretty much sell what his series is originally based on.

If religion is responsible for fundamentalism, then atheism is just as responsible for anti-theism. Just regard the other example I provided (maybe taking it out of the hugely subjective theism part will do better). Are animal rights activist responsible for some extreme actions of groups like Peta?

Yeah as long as there will be religion, there will be fundamentalists. As long as there are atheists, you will have those attacking others for believing in a god. As long as there are those fighting for animal rights, you will have peta. You can't blame an entire movement for a radical part of it. That doesn't mean closing your eyes to it. You have to address why that happens, and try to work against it. But religion is not bad because there is fundamentalism.

While I don't share the sentiment that students shouldn't protest tuiton fees just because they're better off than others, I don't like the actions of Anonymus either. When you're protesting, you have to make sure you don't hurt anyone, and especiall not those who aren't even involved in the conflict. Attacking F1 in bahrain at least made a bit of sense. Attacking them here does not, at all.

As far as I understood it, it's worse than CCB unless you fight a boss with a lot of health, were the fight takes long enough for the bleeding effect of the royal crossbow to stack.

It's the same discussion again, fundamentalism vs. moderate religion. I don't know what you want to hear. You bring up the same discussion that has led nowhere just a few pages ago. What's your goal?

Well with christianity I haven't heard of any direct penalties for apostasy, though there's the somewhat widespread belief that they will be punished by not getting access to heaven after dying. Since they wouldn't believe that, it's not keeping them from leaving the religion though. Of course, there will be exceptions to that as well (I assume the pressure from society will be a lot higher if you live in an area with a lot of people of your old faith around you) I'm not sure how Islam handles these things.

Never said Stannis was the worst option. And yeah, he doesn't have any "right" to the throne. All kings lack a right to their throne. The Targaryens have none either, all they did was having an Ancestor who happened to have three dragons and an army. A claim may help you secure the throne because there are those who believe in a king having a right to the throne, but it's not really valid. If Tywin had the armies to secure the iron throne, he would have claimed it. Simple as that. I've said the throne belongs to the one who reaches out for it - not that this would make someone a good king. Stannis killing his brother to achieve his goals is definitely a vile act. Of course every king sends men off to die. But they have different motivations. For Joffrey, it's to secure his throne and to kill those who he feels have betrayed him. For stannis, it's to get his "rightful" throne. For renly it's his lust for the throne. Robb's original intention was to protect his family and the north(Remember he was somewhat bullied into declaring himself king), though you have to wonder how much this has changed. I'd still way prefer Robb e.g. over stannis though. At least he cares about his men instead of being completely indifferent about them like Stannis is.

Still, being the "rightful" king doesn't make him any better, nor is it a reason to kill your brother and send thousands off to die...I'm just saying.

K swiftkit is not [bleep]ing safe to use. Ignore this imbecile above. I've had the passwords on all the accounts i've ever used on SK changed, so shut up. Because the opinion of some random person on a forum is trustworthy. Trust him over you. It's still the wiser course to stay away from it for a few days until you can be sure the issue is resolved.

First of all, the throne is not his by right. He's only the heir because Robert - unlawfully- rebelled against Aerys. And the throne is not the right of the Targaryen's either. The throne belongs to the one who reaches out and takes it. But while I agree that Stannis's motivation is somewhat more honorable than that of others, that doesn't really make him better. The fact still stands he will do *anything* to achieve his goals. He killed his own brother for it! Renly by far isn't without fault either, but I have to admit I don't quite get the rooting for Stannis, or rather, I don't get how people think he'd make a good king.

Meh can't say I like him. He's willing to do anything, sacrifice thousands of people's lives to get that throne for himself. He doesn't really care about others and while he may not be just as twisted as Cersei or Joffrey, he's not exactly what I would call a good king...

The point was not her "becoming" bisexual anyway...She was already and that's not what TTanT's post was about.

Uh yeah? People are allowed to wear masks too, you know? (Baring certain occasions, e.g. demonstrations where it might be important to be able to identify people) edit: And let's please not get into a discussion where wearing masks is allowed and where not.

Why would it be banned? While culture may deem it inappropriate, that's no reason to deny it to people. As long as there's no negative consequence for others or severe consequences for the person itself (And I wouldn't count being insulted because someone acts against your culture as a negative consequence), there's no reason to ban anything.

Burqa bans don't allow women to wear burqas, even if they want to. Yeah, I get the concept behind it, trying to work against female oppression in islam, but that doesn't really work out anyway, and you can't close your eyes to the fact that some muslim women WANT to wear the burqas, therefore you are imposing a ban on a part of their religion.