Noxx

Same thing happened to me 2 years ago. Me and the girl ended up dating on and off until recently. Funny enough she used to be pretty strict catholic. I guess i showed her what life could really be. Anyway about 6months into the relationship i told her that at first i just wanted to be with her for the sex, she told me that she's happy she changed my mind.

I think there's a certain timing you need to respect in order not to get stunned. Yeah sometimes i manage to get a decent rhythm going and i can get 30 - 40k exp before getting stunned, but most times it seems i get stunned a lot. But thank's anyway. Think i'll stick to monkeys then. I should get the hang of it if i'm there a bit longer.

No more than a child who would have a hard time understanding why Timmy would have two daddies. But these issues aren't harmful to child development when handled properly. Good point.

Pulling out all stops i only manage ~200k exp/h at Monkeys with 91 Thieving. I seem to get stunned quite a lot. Would PP be better at this point? And if so, would it be better till 99 or will Monkeys become a better option again at a later stage? Thanks!

...so you explain it to them? Of course interracial relationships are fine. If both people are happy then what's the problem? Not all 5 year old's are going to understand why mommy and daddy aren't both the same color but all his friends' parents are.

One of my older cousins married an Indian woman in South Africa. They have a boy who, when he was about 5 years old, started going to day-care. He was one of two non-white children there. Coincidentally the other non-white boy there was also child to an interracial couple (my cousin's best friend). Anyway, their kinds did start asking questions as to why not both their parents were of same colour. He's 7 now, in a school where the majority of the students are white (about a 5:1 ratio). He has only 2 or 3 friends because he's a mixed-breed child. The black kinds don't want to be his friends because he's not black, and the white kind don't want to be his friend because he's not white. Although this is only one example, it should still give you a idea of the South African mindset (although it is slightly improving with our generation) I think in most parts of South Africa, my parents' generation is still very much against interracial relationships. And that's a huge problem because most of them (all of my school friends' parents) had no problem expressing their racism. This rubbed off on my friends, and my parents rubbed off on me. We had about 8 coloured people in our school of ~1500 students and the only people who befriended them were the other coloured students. Sometimes when you go to the mall you would see the odd interracial couple here and there. People (mostly males of my dad's generation [ Black and White]) would walk past them and mutter profanities at them. Not loud enough to make a scene, but loud enough for them to hear. Although this has nothing really to do with interracial relationships, it should give you an idea how racism and how it would would play a role in an interracial relationship. And a child who is not white, but not black either, receives hate from both sides.

The long and the short of it, is that abortion shouldn't be taken lightly, but that sometimes it can be the best (not good, but best) solution to a problem, for the people involved. I like this a lot.

Although it might seem like a pretty basic "Yes or No" question, it's not really as simple as that. There's a lot that should be considered when answering. In some societies, seeing a interracial couple is still highly frowned upon. This in itself could make for a difficult relationship. Then there's another factor to consider. Children. For lack of better wording i'll refer to them as half-breed or mixed-breeds. Sooner or later he's going to become confused as to why he's not one color, nor another, but a combination of both. Sooner or later he's going to wonder why his parents are not the same color. Although this may seem like simple matters, it could cause much confusion for a child. Then another factor that could play a role would be your beliefs. Is it against your beliefs? Although i doubt any religion forbids interracial relationships, there's always the possibility. The last thing i can think of, that might have a slight impact on your answer, are you parents/family. Although your family should not be too much of a worry, your parents might be. If your parents are against interracial relationships (and let's face it, many of our parents might be considering the time they grew up in) it might make things extra difficult. You might be faces with two choices. Her/Him or your parents. Although your parents will probably love you no matter what they say, is a relationship with a "stranger" really worth taking over the relationship of your parents? The people who fed you, clothed you and educated you your whole life. From my personal experience i can say that interracial relationships are not as easy as a same-race relationship. Although i live in an area where it's not really frowned upon, you would still get the occasional stare. It might not seem like much, but sooner or later it becomes an annoyance. My ex-girlfriend was Pakistani. And although her skin was fairly light, one of her sisters as well as her mother was not. If we were to have children, there would always be the chance of a dark baby. This, like i said, could lead to much confusion in the later stages of the child's development. Also my parents are against it. Very against it. They have this idea that "you should stick to your own type". I get angry when they say that, but they grew up in Apartheid (for the most part) so one can't really blame them for being stuck on that mindset. Anyway, i would like to hear your thoughts, views and opinions.

Well from my experience, even doing that isn't always an option. I went with the girl once. It was fine at first. They had a band (rock band) that was singing and stuff. But as the service went on i started getting more and more uncomfortable with the people shouting and dancing around like hooligans. In all honesty i got the [cabbage] scared out of me. I was waiting for them to bring in a lamb and sacrifice it, no joke. I don't think lying or pretending is worth an experience like that.

Omission is betrayal, isn't it? I was in a similar situation a few months ago. I was dating a girl that was conservative christian. I'm atheist. It did cause problems after a while because she kept asking me to go to church with her and sooner or later you start running out of excuses why you can't go with her. Better get it out in the open now, before things get serious and unnecessary heartbreak is caused.

I have to disagree, I don't find it to be a necessity. He didn''t break any laws, and even if he had done so, he deserved a trial, where he would be judged based on evidence. You can't just skip all the process and have someone killed because he says something you don't like (which aslo happens to be protected by your own laws). What's more is that trying to justify this is supporting the idea that a single person (or a very small group of priviledged people) can determine wether it is a necessity or not to kill someone without having questions asked. The whole point of the second article was to say how that approach isn't practical. It basically boils down to giving one person a fair trial, or letting further terrorist attacks occur. I don't think one is going to stop the other. If anything, I suspect his killing, at least in the manner that it was carried out, would cause more revolt than letting him free. And even if you felt the other way, there is always the option of imprisoning him, which would also stop him from trying to spread his ideals. It seems to me that the whole point was making an example out of his death, rather than preventing the threats. Basically my thoughts. Killing a terrorist isn't going to scare off his terrorist buddies. They're groomed to die. Doing something like this might just give them that nudge over the edge. But i doubt much will come of this.

When i was about 13 this guy came to my high school to talk about smoking/drugs and the effects it could have on our lives. He talked about this mother he knew who was a 2-packs a day smoker. She smoked during her pregnancy and when the child was born his body was so dependent on some of the chemicals in cigarettes that he HAD to start smoking himself at a very young age. I think it was from the age of 3 or something. Otherwise his body would have such bad withdrawals that he could possible die. I think when he reached the age of 12 or something he died because of lung cancer. His mother was against abortion. She wrecked the life on an innocent child because of her addictions. Millions of children are born in africa each day. Children whos parents don't even have the money to each once every day, sometimes not even once every other day. Sure, most of them probably can't afford abortions but a large enough portion of them are not allowed to have abortions due to their religious beliefs. This child grows up in poverty and suffers from day one. As if that isn't enough the chances of the child having aids is there too. In lot of african cultures the husband may have multiple wives/sex-partners so he goes around spreading his seed and by doing so he spreads his aids resulting in thousands of children being born with aids. The wife cannot deny the husband his right (sex) so she is impregnated against her will. Not only is the cruel to the mother, but even more so to the unborn. Adoption can't always be an option. Not many people would be willing to adopt a baby with aids and put not only their lives at risk but everyone the child comes in contact with. Children play and get bumps and bruises all over the place. And having being born with hiv could potentially be a death sentence. Because of their religious beliefs they spread aids when they could have prevented it. Of course i'm not saying they're the reason aids is spreading, so don't come with your "are you claiming/implying". Many of the arabic families in Qatar and i think in Saudi (might be in other middle-eastern countries too), inbreeding is/was a common thing. It was the only way to keep a clean bloodline. Most of those children are born with defects. Not only that, but most of the time the mother had no say in the matter. She could either have sex with a relative or face whatever consequences there may be. These children all get put in a Home where they are taken care of by strangers. The father doesn't care. The mother had no option of abortion because it is against her religious beliefs. And no one is going to adopt a mentally ill/deformed child. The child will never be able to live a normal life. Edit: I also see no point in making abortions illegal. Underground abortions will soon become popular. Then you're faced with sketchy basement operations where the risk of the mother dying become all the more greater. In South Africa you can now get abortions at the age of 13 without parental consent (if i remember correctly) and as soon as the news was released posters started popping up all over the town. People offering cheap, easy, fast abortions. So many of the girls that go in don't come out the same. A lot of them get very ill and some of them even die. So taking away the right to abort won't solve a damn thing, in fact it will only take more lives.

SA vs. Samoa - Probably the worst game of the World Cup. Not because of the players, no. Because of a Referee that did an absolute piss-poor job. There were so many shoulder/neck high tackles. I can't even begin to understand how he did not call them. There was so much going on off the ball, it was like watching a wrestling match with a ball tossed in. His yellow-card to Smit in the 71st minute was totally unjust. Since when is an attempted intercept a deliberate knock-down? The Samoan red card should have NEVER even happened. The Referee should have stopped play when the South African number 6 swung his arms in an attempt to free himself for the first time. It happened right where the ball was. Totally shocking. I think the Ref should stick to calling the smaller matches because clearly he does not know how to handle important matches like the one we had here. And i really don't see how IRB could have allowed him to blow in a match where SA was playing. He has a nasty reputation for being a prick whenever we are involved in a game. A lot of his calls are highly questionable. On a different note. Frans Steyn is still tearing it up with his monster boot. Although he missed some today, it's good to see that he's still able to reach the posts from his own 10 meter line. This surely has to put some pressure on their opponents. Make a mistake anywhere near the half-way line and we you gift us 3 points.

He never implied anything. He gave his opinion. If you don't agree, fine. But there's no need to jump on your high-horse.

Why do I think of Woody from Toy Story when I look at you? Jew nose? I always though he looked like Tobey Maguire. Wow when i was about 16 a friend of mine said that too. I thought he was crazy :P

I'm pretty sure my idea of what the church wants and your idea of what it wants are still two very different things. I'm sure that's not what you were getting at. But okay. Time to stop going of topic, i think.

Exchanging a life of challenges for an eternity of happiness. Yes, I think that sounds like a good deal. In your eyes yes. Because you choose to believe in a fairy tale. In my eyes no. Because i choose to believe in science. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't label religious doctrine in such a condescending manner. It isn't very mature. Oh, in your eyes, is an eternity of happiness not worth a short life of challenges? Is that not a good deal? That was your question to me. Now I ask it of you. If your answer is that it does sound like a good deal (which it will be), then you'll understand why the Church is doing what it is doing. And I find it too funny that you label a good Catholic life as miserable. You can't have sex until your married? How awful! You can't abort a child because you never thought that your girlfriend would get pregnant, even though you are thoroughly warned that birth control is not 100% fool proof? Dang, I'm sorry. It's so tough not being able to do everything that you want to do. That sure makes life completely miserable, huh? I'd label it how ever i want to :\ If you're not happy with it you're welcome to take it somewhere else. And now you're just being ignorant because you fully know that faulty birth control is not the only reason women accidentally get pregnant. Also, in my eyes there is no eternal happiness because like i said, i don't believe in fairy tales. So why should i face any sort of unwanted challenge? Thanks Noxx. I'm sure you understand. And I do know fully well that faulty birth control is not the only reason women get pregnant. Would you like me to write a few essays that cover every example of a complaint a person would have against the Church? I didn't ask if there was eternal happiness. I asked, if there was, would it be worth a challenging life to achieve it. It's a simple question. Write them up. I'd like to hear your thoughts. PM them to me whenever you're done. And to answer your question, it would probably be worth it IF there was an afterlife.

Exchanging a life of challenges for an eternity of happiness. Yes, I think that sounds like a good deal. In your eyes yes. Because you choose to believe in a fairy tale. In my eyes no. Because i choose to believe in science. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't label religious doctrine in such a condescending manner. It isn't very mature. Oh, in your eyes, is an eternity of happiness not worth a short life of challenges? Is that not a good deal? That was your question to me. Now I ask it of you. If your answer is that it does sound like a good deal (which it will be), then you'll understand why the Church is doing what it is doing. And I find it too funny that you label a good Catholic life as miserable. You can't have sex until your married? How awful! You can't abort a child because you never thought that your girlfriend would get pregnant, even though you are thoroughly warned that birth control is not 100% fool proof? Dang, I'm sorry. It's so tough not being able to do everything that you want to do. That sure makes life completely miserable, huh? I'd label it how ever i want to :\ If you're not happy with it you're welcome to take it somewhere else. And now you're just being ignorant because you fully know that faulty birth control is not the only reason women accidentally get pregnant. Also, in my eyes there is no eternal happiness because like i said, i don't believe in fairy tales. So why should i face any sort of unwanted challenge?

Exchanging a life of challenges for an eternity of happiness. Yes, I think that sounds like a good deal. In your eyes yes. Because you choose to believe in a fairy tale. In my eyes no. Because i choose to believe in science.

So you want us to be eternally happy but before we get there you want us to have a miserable life by trying force us to do things your way.

But i do not. And neither do a lot of other people. The Church should concern themselves with their own matters and leave the legal matters to the Law. The law is doing what they believe is in the best interest for ALL the people. Giving people the option is what is best, not trying to force them in one direction. I don't want some cult meddling with my life and what should be my choices just like you don't want heathens meddling with yours. So it's intentions would be in the wrong place because it would force people to break away from what THEY really want ad would be forced to do what "the Church" sees right. The Church's 'own matter' is the salvation of all people. The Church is doing what it believes in in the best interest for ALL the people. Giving people the option is not what is best. Would a parent want to give their son the option of burning his hand on an open stove? People just don't want to live a life according to the Church because they can't do whatever they want in such a life. What a person 'wants' is not always what is best for them, Noxxx. The Church wants the best for everyone, and there is no harm in that intention. And what makes the church think they know what's in my best interest? What gives them the authority? And we only have 1 life. I don't need a guy telling me what he think's i should do just because he thinks it's in my best interest because he believes in fairy tales and ghosts. I'm pretty sure most people know what's in their best interest without having someone tell them. We do not always do what is in our best interest because it is our human nature.

But i do not. And neither do a lot of other people. The Church should concern themselves with their own matters and leave the legal matters to the Law. The law is doing what they believe is in the best interest for ALL the people. Giving people the option is what is best, not trying to force them in one direction. I don't want some cult meddling with my life and what should be my choices just like you don't want heathens meddling with yours. So it's intentions would be in the wrong place because it would force people to break away from what THEY really want ad would be forced to do what "the Church" sees right.

When they vote for abortion to be illegal, they're forcing their beliefs in people. When people vote for abortion to be legal, they're giving the option to those who want it. See the difference? I got ninja'd...

Human Rights in KSA :lol:

... and that is where you're wrong again. After Manal al-Sharif, the woman in question, posted the video of herself driving a car in Khobar, she was arrested by individuals from the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice ("CPVPV") [formerly known as "the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Elimination of Sin"] -- are mutaween -- clerics posing as policemen who enforce Sharia Law. I'm talking about the country law, not the sharia law. Of course, the two are quite tightly bound together.. ... and I am telling you that she was arrested and tried because she was "sinning" -- not on criminal or misdemeanor charges ... :rolleyes: Then why do most other countries run under the Sharia law not do the same? Why is driving legal there? Read back -- your answer is there. To summarize: Saudi owes it's very existence, mainly, to Abdul-Aziz bin Saud's alliance with the Wahhabi. The Wahhabi were/are ultra-conservative fundamentalist extremists who wish to purge Islam of all "impurities" -- which includes ANYTHING that is considered to be -- by their own definition mind you -- contrary to Qu'ranic tenet and Sharia law. Most other countries operating under Sharia Law don't have this as the basis of their society -- although Afghanistan likewise had a Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice under the Taliban, and so does, I think, the Gaza Strip under Hamas. Oh that make's sense then. Probably the same reason other Middle-Eastern countries allow the distribution of alcohol and pork, etc.