AThousandLies

I managed to join and stay in three map-making clans for a decent period of time without so much as making a melee map.

Do you think that Fred Phelps should teach his kids his idea of morality? Mate, if you had a dad like that, you'd be brainwashed by the time you could even walk. School, moral lessons or not wouldn't teach you any differently. ... Is there something that man doesn't hate? :lol: Yeah, I'm waiting for godhatesblondes.com.

I was hoping to go to V Festival in Perth to see Queens of the Stone Age, Smashing Pumpkins and the Jesus and Mary Chain, but for some ungodly reason, and despite it being an outdoor venue which would draw a large number of underage fans, the [bleep]ers made it 18+.

This is the off-topic forum. Many people here do not play Runescape at all, or play it very rarely. I'm well aware. I just looked at his RSN which had high-level stats (including members), and then given that he has a Runescape avatar and signature, I just put two and two together, you know?

I believe it as at this point that I am obliged to say ... "TOOK ERRR JERRRRBS"

We're all going to hell anyway - why not take the short road?

Tool fans think alike. All those things piss me off immesely, esecially the first. I get really irritated when music journalists get their facts wrong. I also dislike morons on the internet (of which there are many). Bandwagons and associated attitudes (hating and/or calling everything emo, loving Chuck Norris, narrow-minded fanboys/girls) piss me off as they, to me, often represent the lack of individuality amongst a lot of people today. I hate religious/gun nutjobs. People who use the word "nerd" as an insult in a video game (I mean, come on). The White Stripes. Linkin Park. The Streets. Limp Bizkit. The [puncture]s organising V Festival here. Whoever decided to replace Futurama with Friends. And plenty more.

Or you could try quitting Runescape . . .

Not really, I'm not religious but I'd give my life for 5 innocent children in a blink of an eye, and also volunteered for UN peacekeeping in Kosovo pre-2000. It just seems like common sense to me, that an innocent person (especially a kid who doesn't know much about the world yet) should not die. Yeah, sadly I can't argue with that. But it's also greatly a question of your grade of honor. Would you kill an enemy combatant who already acknowledged his defeat, laid down his weapon and prays you to spare him because he has a family to feed? I wouldn't, but some people would brutally shoot them to death. There's nothing factual I can justify my stance to them with, except stating their honor is that of filthy rats and they don't deserve to be called men. I just don't think it's right to kill people who obviously deserve to live. But I'd have a very hard time rationalizing that to a bunch of savages who are interested in ethnic cleansing and mindless killing, and enjoy destroying people's lives. I want to make clear here that I'm not trying to argue with you, and I'm glad that you've given me an alternative point of view with regards to the logic thing. I'm not saying that I have no morals - I have plenty of my own ethics and standards, and would not kill, steal, or assault someone for the hell of it. I've just been struggling with this concept for the past few months and am trying to find some meaning, so I appreciate what you've said.

It's human inbuilt nature to desire survival. By hurting and killing others, you greatly decrease your own chance of survival because other innocent people will not tolerate it. Why wont normal people tolerate a killer, stealer or rapist? Because if he picks targets at random, anyone in the society could be his next victim. And most of the people in society do not want to be killed, stolen from, or raped. They want to survive and live life normally. Why is hurting other people wrong? Because those other people did not give you the permission to hurt them. Why is it wrong to hurt other people without their permission? Because the person hurting others wouldn't want to get hurt himself in the first place. He clearly isn't doing unto others as he wishes to be done to himself. Killing an innocent person is a logical fallacy. On the exception of being suicidal, humans don't want to kill themselves. Why would you kill another person then, making yourself vulnerable to be killed by other people who don't want to be your next victim, and protect themselves by killing you? But I'm not talking about a logical conundrum here. I'm talking about moral stances. Logically, it is (99% of the time) in a human's best interest to not kill someone, as it will most likely result in their own seclusion, isolation, punishment, death etc. However, if such threats did not exist - if I could kill anyone and not fear punishment - then the only thing stopping me would be morals. The basis of those morals is ever changing, depending on social conditions. What I'm saying is that aside from religious doctrine, there does not seem to be any sort of foundation for morality, aside from respect for human life and whatnot - which is a part of morality itself. I'm saying as of my present understanding, you can question every moral stance, and eventually the only answer you'll get for something being wrong is that "it just is".

So if a guy from tip.it comes to your school tomorrow and shoots all your best friends, who are you to tell him he is wrong just because you believe "he shouldn't do so"? Your argument doesn't work in the real world. Laws are based on universal, biologically inbuilt morals, such as the fact most normal people don't 1. Want to get hurt 2. Want to kill others It doesn't take college religion class or upbringing. Even tribal people in remote villages can live amongst each other without killing people for small disputes, or refrain from stealing, because it gives those people a reason to steal back from you. You can go and cause harm to an umbrella seller by stealing his goods he paid for, have fun explaining the judge you are justified to do it "because 1 umbrella wont hurt him anyways". I don't mean to skew the topic here, but this is an issue that I've been questioning myself for the past few months. Now, if someone came up and shot all of my friends, I obviously would tell him that he was wrong and do what I can to stop it, because my morals are that killing (in most contexts, such as that one) is wrong. However, what is the basis for such a moral position? Why is killing wrong? "Because it hurts other people." Why is hurting other people wrong? "Because it just is." In my own attempt to comprehend this issue, I've found that virtually all moral arguments boil down to right and wrong being right and wrong simply because they "just are". From my secular point of view, I cannot find any absolution in morality. My morals are informed by society and my personal environment (and I suppose myself, if I can be categorically disconnected from society and the environment), which are informed by religious doctrine (in the case of the West, Catholic teachings). But ultimately I can't find any absolute reason for anything. I hate to go all modernist/nihilist, but I cannot see any one truth about morality, right and wrong. This brings up a point with regards to dominant social morality. Laws are a product of social beliefs, which change over time. It was only a couple of decades ago that homosexuality was considered a disorder by WHO, and it is still considered a crime in many Asian and African countries. In the West a century or so ago it was (to my knowledge) entirely unacceptable, but fast forward 100 years and it's less and less of a social taboo. I'm going off-track here, but what I'm trying to say is that morality seems to change. Social attitudes shift and common law seems to shift with it. In this respect, there does not seem to really be any moral absolution or consistency. You made an interesting point, BlueLancer, about 'biological' and 'in-built' morals. But, do we really know if these things are a part of our innate, inherent human nature? Do we all want to do good and please people? Are we all born as good, pure and innocent, or are we a blank canvas subject only to the influence of our environment? I really don't know.

They're already there, dude.

So I imagine the questing system involves generic, linear, 1 to 2-step tasks then?

Uhh.. Not very original though.. :lol: They didn't even bother with Actibliz or Blizzivision which may not be a bad thing after all... Monopolies tend to = declined in quality and generally negative outcomes for consumers.

I always felt that a supergroup combining the bands 'Anal C*nt' and 'Napalm Death' would have a pretty cool name.

I feel so out of the loop ... the only one of those games I've played is ETQW.

The Silkroad site was screwy so I gave up on that, might give it a go later. I tried PlaneShift but it was so tedious and boring that I decided it wasn't worth my time. I gave Voyage Century ago but once again the registration itself was frustrating enough. I think I'd be put off a lot of these games by the tutorial and learning curve which is often 1) large and 2) incredibly tedious. My download cap's running low so I'll stick with Runescape until it resets and maybe give WoW ago as I bought a 14 day trial CD. Any more advice is appreciated.

I would find a defendable fort-like location, or construct one myself if resources are at hand. For weapons, probably a large kitchen knife a cricket bat (or baseball bat if I have one), and maybe some large rocks/bricks.

Warcraft 3 (PC) GTA San Andreas (PS2) Mario 64 (Nintendo 64) Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (PC) Doom (PC)

Could be pretty awesome, but see monopolies tendencies to cause a decline in quality. Then again, Warcraft 4 as an FPS? That would be sweet. Who knows, maybe they'll even revive Starcraft: Ghost.

Can't really see anything wrong with the name Nine Inch Nails. Hah! I might start listening to them because of that alone. That's awesome.

Ever notice the bounce of the floor? It probably hurts slightly more then a trampoline does. Sure, the ability to do the stunts that they do is quite amazing, but the poor acting and script kills it. Probably? :lol: And poor acting/script? I can't agree with you there. Check out Mr. Kennedy, MVP, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Santino Marella, Randy Orton and John Morrison. Then try telling me that it's ruined by bad scripting and acting.

GTA San Andreas is probably the game I've gotten the most enjoyment out of. Warcraft 3 is the game with the most replay value, in that I've been able to spend hundreds of hours on it and still find ways to be entertained and challenged.

:lol: I actually was brought up on pretty much only Mario, Donkey kong, and watching my mom play tetris. The only M game I played was Duke Nukem 3D (Heh my first gory fps at the age of 6!) Yeah, but in that case M stood for "My god this is awesome!"

That's essentially what TNA comes across as sometimes. TNA is more about technicality and spots - their wrestlers generally take a lot more risks than the WWE ones. WWE, on the other hand, is like a whole entertainment product - promos, storylines, characters and the whole lot.