insane

I bet there's actually more on Facebook because of the news reports and the fact that Facebook is more personal I think. But at the same time people are networked in facebook and you can't view anyone's profile outside your network. This is especially useful for university networks where you need an email on a university domain to get access to its facebook network. Seeing as facebook was originally intended to just be for university students this really ups the privacy of facebook when compared to myspace where the networking concept doesn't exist.

Yeah but my point was that even though teachers are making really good money, they still strike for more. That's where I see the union as unfair. EDIT: I just looked up income taxes between Canada and the United States, and it appears that Americans pay slightly more income tax than Canadians. Although you are correct in that you may much less sales taxes than we do.

Here in Ontario teachers are paid high salaries (50-80k, principals make ~100k) and they still manage to strike for raises every 3 years or so.

:shock:

Because the majority of people are straight? Do you mean that when you read a book, you don't give any kind of personality traits to a character that aren't "explicitly stated"? I don't think it's a bad analogy, as the key in the analogy is that the person giving the lessons is sexually oriented towards the gender of the pupil.

So if you're gay, you're automatically a pedophile? You ignorant [bleep]. Did he say being gay makes him a pedophile? No. Don't put words in his mouth. Dumbledore just so happens to be ~50 years older than Harry, an 11-year old in the first book. You do the math. If you knew a straight, male, elderly teacher who gave a young girl "private lessons" in his office what conclusion would you come to? Pedophilia isn't far off.

If you couldn't figure out that he meant pedophile, you have more mental problems than he does. Well, I suppose a person with a degree in mental health such as yourself would know... obviously. :roll: In case you haven't noticed, we don't take very kindly to insulting on these forums. It was a perfectly good question. All it needed was a Yes or No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedofile Took me 2 seconds.

I actually doubt that that that is the problem. Exactly. Just because someone is aggressive or hyperactive doesn't automatically mean they need downers, frig. It just means that they need to release it, via activity like hunting, rock climbing, or some other sort of activity. Society just looks down upon most of these activities because they involve risks or danger, and we're so overprotective of our kids nowadays that we won't let them outside to play soccer without surrounding them with 4ft. of sponge.

I feel the same way. Society is making men into women and then wondering why "chivalry is dead". Boys are taught to shut up and sit still in class and church and if they don't, it's obviously a problem with their mental capacity so stick them on Ridilin, right? :roll:. People can't seem to understand that being aggressive and loud is often what makes a boy male. I think there are major issues with an educational system that tries to treat boys like they are girls, and make them act like girls, learn like girls, and then wonder why boys break more rules and are more aggressive and have outbursts in class. It's because the system is tiered towards females. Boys shouldn't have to apologize for being boys. All of this is in general, of course.

Well it's either a mental disability or a physical disability. His brain incorrectly developed as a female's or his body incorrectly developed as a male's. Would you call it a mental blessing? It is a choice to act on an unchosen homosexual desire though. Just like a man will have desires for a woman that is not his wife; you can choose to act on them (which is immoral), or you can choose to ignore them (which is moral). I don't think Paul would condemn someone for simply having an unchosen desire, but I do think Paul would condemn someone for acting on a homosexual desire, born with or not, as he specifically denounces the action in this passage. What about sex being for marriage, and marriage always spoken in the context of man & wife? The second definition is about sexual attraction and romantic feelings. I would definitely identify this definition as sexual in principle.

Because that's what they thought homosexuality was (in general). Just because we've changed the definition to become more broad doesn't mean that they change their stance on this new definition. You can't expect them to condemn something that has only been defined since after the Bible has been written. It's like saying the genetic modification of a babies' cosmetic features prior to birth isn't immoral according to the Bible because it doesn't specifically mention it. There are other principles and passages not explicitly stating it that you can derive other the moral rule from. How do you suppose that homosexuality isn't purely sexual? I just read the wikipedia article on homosexuality and it was described as entirely sexual. Here is a quote from the article:

Paul is condemning both having and acting on homosexual desires as a sinful choice, much like a person who chooses to have sex with underage girls rather than grown women even though he can be aroused by both. So how is this not equal to a passage in the Bible that condemns homosexuality? What is homosexuality besides having homosexual desires? I don't understand how you can say that this isn't a Biblical passage condemning homosexuality.

So you're saying that Paul is condemning acting on homosexual desires, but not condemning having homosexual desires?

Note that Paul also condemns men being "inflamed with lust for one another" - this isn't an action, it is an attitude, or way of being. It's irrelevant. It's a part of the Bible.

Romans Ch.1 (I know it's offtopic, but just wanted to point out the inconsistency in your thought.)

I think there are a couple of us posting on this thread that are ex tipit mods, so we do have an idea. I don't want you to feel obligated to respond to this, but meh. It's theoretical. If you get a topic of yours locked by a moderator whom you see frequently post, you're going to feel more comfortable asking them about it than some random shmuck who only posts on staff forums. The more you see a moderator being a part of the community, the more receptive you'll feel about them policing the community they are so-called a "part of".

Crew members already work exceptionally hard the way it is. I'm sure a lot of them barely have enough time for their website work, let alone moderating the forum as well. I don't think Merc was saying that it should be mandatory to moderate as a crewbie; I think he was just saying that since they are trustworthy, it would be good if they had moderators powers so in incidents like the keylogger emergencies we would have extra people around to put out the fire. For emergency use only, so to speak.

I don't see what's so hard to understand with that, just to be honest. What's hard to understand is that you would make a post like the one you just did. Your "honesty" is quite demeaning to Satenza, and anyone else that doesn't understand how a moderator that hasn't posted publicly in a month would be considered "active" by any degree. You speak as if we're a bunch of ignorant users. Well, guess what? I've been there, done that, and Satenza is correct by my experience. Darkrick too. Moderators that aren't posting publicly or locking topics probably aren't moving topics or posting on the other hidden boards. It doesn't make sense that someone would go a month, doing all these non-public moderator actions without locking a single post. So "just to be honest", your post was useless and condescending. Tripsis explained herself, and we understand her point. There's no need to come along, agree with her, and tell us that we're stupid for not understanding. We understand. Don't assume we're stupid. Maybe you should try harder to understand OUR point of view instead of just strutting around.

Like you said , it LOOKS like they are inactive. Just because you search their posts and don't get a huge result, does not make a moderator inactive. Moderators post probably 75% of their posts and topics on forums that none of you have any access to. Yes, often moderators may slip and become a bit inactive due to personal issues, time, whatever the reason, but trust me, we notice it a lot more quickly then the users do. My experience on staff would lead me to believe that those that look like they are inactive, probably are. Of course, it might not be the case now (it would be arrogant of me to suggest I know what the current situation is), but from my experience those that are inactive took quite a while to be removed, and then all of a sudden we'd have 5+ removed in one shot. It's a tangent, but meh.

This has been a problem since before I can remember. Inactive moderators are given too much time before they are deactivated. Then all of a sudden there will be a spree where everybody who has been inactive for a month as well as others get removed from staff.

My Answer: I really don't campaign much for animal OR human rights. I support both of them with a passion, but i've never really done anything(I guess that makes me pretty stupid :^o ) But it is obvious that you care more for animal rights, judging by the number of topics you have created in the name of animal rights. Why is this?

Bloodredsword, did you miss my post? I was wondering what your answer to my question was.

One thing I always ask animal rights activists is if they spend an equal or greater amount of time campaigning for human rights. So, topic author, do you spend an equal or greater amount of time campaigning for human rights? If not, do you think animal rights are more important than human rights?

Why? Exactly. You can't prove that any action is actually right or wrong unless you believe in a source of absolute morality. Since that isn't true for most of this forum, it's impossible to classify this, or any other action, as wrong.

But I'm sure the boys would say that they were living happy and peaceful lives by having sex with their mother.