Rebdragon

Sounds like Shinto :P .

I think he's pointing fingers and strong atheism dude, not weak atheism or agnosticism :-s .

We are still talking about the Japanese here, right? [hide] [/hide] Ya, it's a blog. Sue me. Also, on the topic of civilian lives, consider the number of civilians lives Japan had taken [in China and Asia]* and was going to take over the remaining duration of the war, if a land invasion were to occur. We weren't just going to be losing soldier lives by continuing WWII. *

Something we all seek to find but, in the end, can never in a million lives fully understand. Buddha's cool wit me. He ain't a deity though so that might not be answering your question. So, no for the rest of it. I believe in da Buddha 'cause I love his teachings. I believe they're true, but at the same time they're so multilayered that I can't say I fully understand it just by, say, going to Church every other-other-other-other-other Sunday. In fact, it'd take forever to fully grasp what he teaches, but every new layer scowered brings new insights and understanding to his true message :) . For the deity part of the question, my answer is Strong Agnosticism- as has been said, there's just a lack of evidence. N/A Good luck getting away from atheism and agnosticism where social demeanor means squat and anonymity rules dude :P .

Hm, I wonder why you used the subjunctive rather than the indicative... :-k .

Wubz Paramore . Almost as much as Evanescence. Almost. Ian Van Dahl - Castles in the Sky

Uh... don't want to burst your bubble, but... there is a bit of weight to that 'rumor' :-s . Hellz ya. I prefer 'em brunette though. 34C is big enough for me as well : . Maybe tack on 6-8 years to that as well... :-k .

Amen to that ^_^.

You accuse us of not valueing a soldier's life, then you expect us to come up with some ratio, as though they were a commodity? Even we have more respect for a soldier's life than that. When anyone dies it's a tragedy. The difference is that a soldier has accepted he may very well die in his job. That civilian hasn't. Good point (same for Lancer) :-k . Though, I'd have to say that ending the war quickly and with far less casualties overall (we'd be in the millions easily with a land invasion) was a better choice. It's not that I don't think you guys don't value soldier lives, it's just that I think I value them too much (as well as the lives of the peoples being tormented by the Japanese all over the Pacific >_<). I'd rather see two cities go down than have an entire generation, or possibly even two, of males from two or more nations be completely wiped out for the sake of needlessly continuing an already finished war without any kind extraneous actions. Really could care less to argue my case though. [On a side note on of my old point... do you guys have anything against risking the lives of 1,000 soldiers for one person, no matter how invaluable? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? What if these soldiers were guarenteed to die, how would your opinion change? Basically my prior question wasn't asking for a fixed ratio, just a rough estimate of where you draw your line. As cruel as it may seem to try and make some ratio, as much as a bastard you probably think I am for asking this, it'd help me understand your position if you could kindly try and explain how many soldier lives you would be willing to lose for the sake of one civilian, or whatever kind of scenario you want to offer.] Please, get on the other side of the argument. Then you might actually be useful to the side you think you're arguing with.

I know that and I agree. But how much more is it worth?

Okay, how many civilian lives would you be willing to lose for the lives of how many soldiers? I'd just like a ratio estimate of your opinion on the need to keep them alive during war, 'cause all I've read so far is "I value civilian lives infinitely more than soldier lives [during war]".

Okay, now I'm tired of sad Em. She needs to punch somebody or something.

What is it with people and having absolutely no value for the life of a soldier :| ? They're humans, just like you and me. Maybe it's better to have a soldier die on the battefield than a civilian, considering they're equpped for it... but do you really advocate so whimsically throwing away human lives? Oh, and no offense to anyone on either side of the issue, but anyone arguing justification by Pearl Harbor (or straw maning by going against it) is going about this wrong. If you havn't already studied what the Japanese did throughout the Pacific, throughout Eastern Asia, if you have not studied the mindset of the Japanese (or at least know enough to debate it), then please, do not bother trying to argue. That information is too vital not to know before you choose a side in this argument. Sounds interesting :-k . If it's already typed up, I'd love to it if you could PM it to me if you find it. If not, don't waste your energy on it, especially if it's long :P .

Medellin, I'm on your side on this issue. I was just saying that you can't justify the bombings by Pearl Harbor, but rather by the actions of the Japanese along the Pacific. Arguing that Pearl Harbor justified it is basically trying to argue an eye for an eye... or actually, I dunno, three hundred people and a chimp for an eye. That's what I meant by "barbaric".

I'll be honest with you dude, the only Tip.iter's who actually enjoy discussing this topic (me included) have long ago lost both the drive and any sense of a need to argue it. The topic's already been killed, and I don't think any amount of free Mountain Dew is going to result in any long-lasting serious discussion about it. Oh, and it wasn't justifiable by Pearl Harbor, that's barbaric. Agree with you on the other reason it was justifiable though. Okay, I'm drained. Anyone else want to talk about this?

First one's 'k'. The others just gave me a headache.

Then quit shunning the whiners and start debating with the people who actually have a point about the update being a terrible move. I have yet to understand, or even once be shown why, people seem to hate RWIT. Not even considering the morality of it, which is debatable but irrelevant to the point, what about it makes any player willing to give up staking to diminish it's effects almost not at all [for the sake of argumentation, considering they actually stake]? As has been stated in the past, not only was the duel arena mostly utilized for more personal RWIT, but it is only one of a near infinite number of methods for RWIT. So, what made this trade-off make sense? Admittedly I have almost nothing against RWIT, but even so I wouldn't mind Duel Arena being destroyed if it meant the end of it. But to destroy staking, a major aspect of the game then, now, and no longer for the future, to not even dent the opposition? It's ludicrous to say the least. If Jagex is to justify such a trade-off, then it is a justification of all such trade-offs. Would you be willing to get rid of not just the duel arena, but every mini-game in exchange for multiple individual, yet still wholistically ineffectual, "assaults on RWIT"? If you can not, then what right do you have to say Jagex has in taking the first step towards that path? Where do you draw the line? Honestly, is it all really worth it in the end?

What about my post disallows that? :P

Bi.

Don't worry, in the future you will be able to punch people over the internet, provided the action is justified : .

All the hate in the world : .

black friday. some stores are opening at 4 tomorrow. Evil commercialization of a holiday >_>.

.gniyas erew uoy tahw tuo erugif ot regnol em koot ti ,haN

Glad we could come to an agreement, and my bad on misreading that section of your post :P .