constrictor

ALDNFIDSNIASFMIFINSADBDIDNIaindadsdinfdndainINSIANDININSAD

think that's called a pool/andorurinal.

true story.

He was one of the people I know who has indepth knowledge about Minecraft servers, and thus I mentioned his knowledge of it. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it, but his reaction was equally as uncalled for. Sorry to prick his interwebs ego abit too much. The way you worded it made it seem like you were certain he DDoS'd people, but that you were unsure about the method. Well I ammended the situation. Moral of the story is: IPs are fairly easy to obtain, if you are stupid about where to go with your internet searching, etc.

Did a med solo this morning and opened all rooms and no deaths with 4 puzzle rooms and finished with 10:38 mins (forgot to picture). So a 10min average is extremely doable. I normally average 3-4mins on smalls.

^accurate everyone has an agenda. everyone.

Another boring update: Got on this morning and decided to do some quests. Only one I had time/requirements to do was TWW so I said what the hell and went for it: From the rewards I was able to get this: I also am about 2k EXP from 78 Attack, so expect a picture of that sometime soonish. I am also very close to 55 Dungeoneering, since I did some Mediums this morning. I also got 80 Woodcutting on Accia this morning, but forgot to get a picture. Current plans for this week: [] Finish West-Quest line (Legacy of Seergaze and Branches of Darkmyer left). [] Get 85 Magic [] Get 70 Agility [] Try SaraGWD [] Get EE (Seers Tasks) [] Do Ardougne Tasks (as many as my levels permit)

Unless you are RPG, of course.

This is brilliant. I will post further thoughts later when I have access to more sources. Reasons why I want to go to into Philosophy.

OT: I should read more up on him. Anyways, but that's assuming that logic is always correct. And who is to say logic is?

Not really. You don't need consent from your computer to use it because it has no property rights over itself. You can do anything to your property. I doubt the owners of the Eiffel towers gave their consent though. All it means is that by arguing, you've agreed that you have a right to make use of your body as a means. You can't disagree with this, because in order to disagree you have to use your body as a means. In addition, the only correct normative statements are universal. Now you've implicitly said both of us are self-owners. Therefore you can't jail/kill me because you'd be going against the statement you based yourself on. You can extend this to property other than your body using the homestead principle. Who's to say that me going against my original statement is illogical then? Or more so, why can't I do that and it be ok? Sorry I'm just being a asshat about it now, but You are quite brilliant with your responses and it's fun.

1. Civil unions offer far fewer benefits than marriage does. 2. Nice bit about the closet gays there. The "oh if you support gay marriage you must be closeted" implications totally add to your credibility. 3. It's not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality isn't a choice. Gay people are born gay (although obviously this isn't obvious until they've had time to hit puberty and figure out which people they want to screw around with. 4. As Sprint said, the fact that you're calling it sexual deviancy just shows your ignorance on the topic. Frankly you sound pretty bigoted so far. 5. That's for the same reason that interracial couples demanded to be included in traditional marriage, that "separate but equal" policies are never the answer (not to mention the fact that the equal half never happens), and that women keep demanding equal rights even over seemingly unimportant issues. Because no-one likes being discriminated against. I was not aware that conclusive scientific evidence has been found to prove homosexuals are "born that way". Would you mind posting that? Even though I do not condone the behavior, I think categorizing gays as "born that way" is akin to saying they have a sickness, a disease of sorts. And...as I knew would happen with the flaming, your "bigoted" comment is uncalled for. Just because I disagree with someones bedroom kink (Sprint was right, I used the word fetish, it's actually a kink), and that lifestyle being forced upon us as "normal" does NOT color me a bigot. From the technical definition, which is a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his/her own, I am a bigot, as are you for your your use of the bigot as well as the word ignorance. Homosexuals are equal from a standpoint of getting a job, eating at the same restaurants, etc...but as to the natural union which defines humans they most certainly are not. No more than one who marries their own brother, or multiple partners, the Eiffel Tower (silly as it sounds Google that, a woman actually did that) If civil unions are legally different then they should be updated to give the same benefits as a marriage and let homosexuals have civil unions. Problem solved. The reason, as stated by someone earlier, why a person should never be allowed to wed/be in union with something, like the eiffel tower, is that it cannot give consent. As for your assumption that marriage is a "natural union", please explain why that defines humans? What about the celibate/unmarried? EDIT: But how does that allow us to define good from bad? Is it entirely based upon our perspective of aggression/action?

Wrong or just not worth the consequences? Just because you don't make an action (ie me not punching you in order to solve the conflict) does not mean that I made a necessarily good or bad decision. I'd say if anything, it's just choosing to end conflict by means of ease.

Interesting. So language does not change the moral ideology behind the aggression. This is obvious, duh, but it still remains to not answer why aggression is not ok. Or maybe I am missing something.

Basically, if you're arguing, for example, that gay marriage should be illegal, you've implicitly agreed that punching me and anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex is not a solution, and we need to come to a reasoned solution. But by arguing that gay marriage should be illegal, you're saying that we shouldn't come to a reasoned solution and that instead those who commit what you're saying is a crime should be put in a cage, which is aggression (as defined as breach of property rights, considering your body is part of your property). Therefore you've said aggression is and isn't the solution. Those two things can't be true at the same time, so whenever you argue that aggression is okay, you contradict yourself. The takeaway from argumentation ethics (if you agree with it) is that the state--which is the group of people which has a monopoly on the initiation of force, and which generally uses it to tax, jail, and kill--is immoral and that anarcho-capitalism is the only moral order. False convictions are subordinate to that issue. Damn. That honestly may be one of the most interesting things i have ever heard. Out of curiosity, let's pull it to an extreme. I am unsure if you have yet to define aggression, but what it seemed to be in your explanation is a breach of property either through abuse (punching someone in the face), jailing, etc. However, that is yourdefinition for aggression. What if someone else's opinion differs? Better yet, what if a major group of individual's opinions think, per se, that aggression is not breach of property? EDIT: are they not then being equally as ostracized by their views as gays?

Literally: cool story, bro. But seriously.

Interesting..I am on my phone so I did not read the article, however, if I am understanding your condensed summary, you were saying that something is morally "wrong/right" if it doesn't/does convey aggression, respectively? Correct me if I'm wrong. So from that logic, what if someone is falsely convicted? And how do you define aggression? It's not my "opinion" on the term Christianity; it's established fact that different denominations of the Christian faith feel differently about marriage. Your hypothetical style of arguing is deeply inaccurate because you're suggesting, in essence, that Quakers and Catholics think "generally" the same things as each other because they just so happen to both be Christian as well. You're treating the Christian faith itself as completely black or completely white, when in reality, some parts of the Christian faith are darker shades of grey than other parts. The fact you're doing so hypothetically doesn't remove from the fallacy you're committing. The reason I used Christianity is because as a whole, it is a large group that can, more or less, sway a good portion of society. I was in no way trying to corner their views beyond implication. Apologies. I will for now on just say use a different, but large, group of society that could hypothetically fit the situation. Examples could be democrats, teens, republicans, independents, whatever. Just go with the example and think through it some.

<insert deep drug metaphor>

Not sure if just desperately trying to get another high of his new "drug" or just stupid. But seriously, bro, give her up, you don't need that kind of mind-weight.

are you referring to me there?... Because I would like to know why you think its ok to randomly spurt shit because you are jealous that I am not terminally stupid in the way I stake. 999, notice how I said it was almost definitely a rumor? I am in no way jealous. You play RS for an entirely different reason than I do, I was just stating a mechanical fact, and that I have heard similar thoughts from you (that IPs are obtainable through Minecraft PS).

I c wat u did thar. budum ts.

What's that supposed to mean? It is a hypothetical question, and in hypothetical questions generalizations are entirely applicable. So if you were building a hypothetical situation about fastfood and generalized that Americans eat more of it blahblahblah, that is entirely ok, as long as it is hypothetical and not a claim to fact. And who are you to warn? Because your opinion on how the term Christianity matters? Still, I am curious, regardless of your offhanded comment, as to your thoughts.

proof that jagex has too much [bleep]ing time on their hands.

Good luck with them goals. :)