Brasil

You know, it's really interesting to see the tonal differences between Solo's Enter the Net and your n00b Hunter series. I actually kind of think of them as Star Wars versus Alien...Solo's story is the 'Star Wars' of OB, the cheery, goofy, light-hearted, family-oriented tale, while yours is the 'Alien' of OB, the dark, brooding,violent, vampiric, gritty tale that shows the bad and seedy side of OB. ^_^

[quote name='Dragon Warrior']Well, to keep you all feeling stupid or ignorant, none of the characters were based on anyone, though Shinmaru's character in The Otaku Shop in the past did look just like that with big ears.[/quote] *now feels stupid and ignorant, but replies anyway* But the big-eared guy was also using a lightsaber...and Shin's a Star Wars nerd, and a clumsy one at that! =p [quote]But, uhh... thanks for commentses.[/QUOTE] I felt that the Egon quote fit quite nicely. ~_^

James and I were chatting about our respective MyOs, and how we create different Intro images for them with each theme change, and how it's neat to see the progression of them over time. We both thought it would be interesting to make a thread about it, and invite members to post their various MyO Intro images, to see what kind of images people make, what their styles are, etc. So, here goes. I suppose this is a general discussion/critique thread, so be sure to include some feedback and/or background on your various Intro images. ^_^ [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21713&stc=1[/img][/center] [center] [/center] [center] [/center] [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21714&stc=1[/img][/center] [center] [/center] [center] [/center] [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21715&stc=1[/img][/center] [center] [/center] [center] [/center] [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21716&stc=1[/img][/center] [center] [/center] [center] [/center] [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21717&stc=1[/img][/center] I find that I have a very distinct flavor when it comes to my MyO Themes...they're always very "me," no matter what they are. I suppose that each of the themes directly relates to my personality in some way. Spinal Tap (This Is PoisonTongue) is a really satirical fictional/real British heavy metal band from the early 80s, and I love satire, I love the movie, and generally, it's just really fitting for me. I like satirizing things. The Clown theme was something that kind of bounced into my head. I had remembered an old children's book I used to have...I believe it was a Dr. Seuss book about spots, and the background to the theme came to me pretty much immediately. The Clown theme followed shortly thereafter. NES and Star Wars...come on. Do I really need to explain that one? lol *points to Rebel Scum links in Siggy* Marvin the Martian...is my favorite Looney Tunes character ever. He's quirky and fun, and he wants to blow up the Earth because he wants a better view. It's all about location. ~_^

[center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21712&stc=1[/img][/center] Sorry, I couldn't resist. XD I'm sure you don't mind, though, lol. It was pretty enjoyable. I found myself having a good chuckle, and believe me, I needed to laugh, too. Finals and papers are beating me like a red-headed step-child. I do have one question...actually, a few. The big-eared guy with the lightsaber...I figure that's Shinmaru, and the guy with the wizard-looking hat is you, Dragon Warrior (Black Mage and all). And I have a feeling that the bloated friend of Shin's is Syk3...but who is everyone else? lol

[quote name='Xander Harris']It's called a hypothetical example. Of course I was not talking about a green pen. Substitute in an idea or worldview of your choice (i.e. God exists) in place of the green pen.[/quote] We'll use "God exists" later on. [QUOTE]Let's assume for a moment that this is true, and apply it to the OB. Who is the judge of cultivation, you?[/QUOTE] Judge, jury, and executioner, baby. ~_^ Joking aside, I think the jury is actually a useful example. If you're on trial, who would you rather have on the jury? People whose opinions are going to convict you before the case is even presented, or people who are going to be able to view the case objectively, and make an informed and rational decision based on facts instead of personal convictions? [QUOTE]How can you conclude that all their input is necessarily wrong? Go back to my green pen analogy. Simply because someone is crazy does not mean their ideas are wrong. Certainly it can color your interpretation of what they have to say. Certainly you should take what they say with a grain of salt. But you must also provide a REASON why their argument is wrong, beyond "well, you're mentally unstable!" If you cannot provide a logical reason why their argument is wrong beyond this, then you have not conclusively proved that they are wrong, and have not won the argument (Note that we have, for argumentative purposes, taken the ad hominem to it's extreme, by talking about crazy people. I don't think anyone on these boards is insane) Freud's ideas would be very useful for determining if someone is mentally ill. Since we've already concluded that this fictional person is mentally unstable, Freud really has little bearing on this discussion. Certainly you aren't saying that a mentally unstable person is incapable of perceiving anything true? If that is true, how do they manage to so much as feed themselves? And if they are at the point where they can't even do that, then the odds they will be engaging in philosophical discussion to begin with are just about zero. All these theories deal with why people believe what they believe and why they think and act the way that they do. This has little to nothing to do with whether or not what they believe is true. For instance, I may believe that the Earth is round. I may have been told this by a lunatic, a less than credible source. The fact that I am unjustified in my belief that the Earth is round, since I have faulty evidence, does not change the fact that the Earth is round.[/QUOTE] The bleeding heart Liberal Pacifist believes that living in the imagination (i.e., a false reality) is better than living in the real world, simply because the real world has pain and violence in it. I would never, ever support Escapism--actually, I should hope no one would. The Pacifist wants desperately to escape reality, and concocts a fantasy, more or less, so they can remove themselves from that which is troubling to them...run away from their problems, essentially. They then preach this fantasy as the answer, as what can make the world harmonious, as what is the savior, etc. First and foremost, we know for a fact that Escapism, in all of its various forms, is a bad idea, because it--by its very definition--does not focus on reality, and in order to be productive, both mentally and physically, one cannot live in a fantasy. One must live in the now. Agree? Second, because one is arguing Escapism, and desiring to live in a fantasy with elves and so forth, is their stance on the world going to be accurate? Do their psychological make-up and predispositions allow that? [QUOTE]My answer is that world peace is not logically impossible, but it is at the moment causally prohibited. Also, this would make a great topic for a thread in the lounge. You should go start one.[/QUOTE] I think it's fairly safe to say that as long as there humans, there will always be humans engaged in warfare with each other. I mean, it's in our nature to destroy ourselves. If I feel like it, I'll make a thread. [QUOTE]I'm not arguing against that. I'm simply arguing against using psycho-analysis as your SOLE argument against a person. Reading this, I wonder if perhaps we actually agree on this, but are simply coming at it from two different directions and are simply arguing over terminology. Am I right?[/QUOTE] More or less. I'm all for giving peace a chance, but I'm not about to go hyperfocusing on it and letting it rule my life, you know? "The necessity and inevitability of war." Most of the time, I do debunk the superficial points, but it's often worthwhile to also go into the driving force and motivation behind a point. It's actually why Judgment Day can never be prevented in Terminator. ~_^ And just so I don't again get accused of high-jacking a thread...let's continue this one through PM, heh. [size=1][color=purple]Ah, I was just going to ask you to do so. Thanks. ^_~ -Lore[/size][/color]

As I understand it, as long as an instructor isn't [i]preaching[/i] religion, isn't spewing eternal damnation and such at the students, as long as the instructor is talking about it objectively, they're in the clear. I think that's one of the issues here, too, and probably one of the items of the lawsuit. The instructor, even though he had a Christian background, wasn't trying to convert anyone; he was merely answering a question that happened to pertain to religion.

[quote name='Xander Harris']No. Psychological makeup has nothing to do with whether or not someone's position is correct. If a delusional man sees a green pen, and says look, a green pen, and you look and see that the pen is indeed green, do you conclude that the pen is not green because the crazy man thought so?[/quote]Have I ever been focusing on whether there is a green pen here? No, I have not. I've been focusing on a specific worldview and how the slant and emotional predisposition weakens the credibility of said worldview. [quote]I honestly am a bit dumbfounded that you are attempting to defend the concept of Ad Hominem arguements. You have thousands of years of philosophers against you. From wikipedia.org An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: A makes claim B; there is something objectionable about A, therefore claim B is false. The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Positive arguments to the person are discussed under appeal to authority. Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety. Usage An ad hominem fallacy consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong purely because of something about the person rather than about the argument itself. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect. Conversely, not all ad hominem attacks are insulting. "Paula says it is impossible to murder a man, but this is false because Paula never loses her temper." [edit] Validity Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy. Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments. A committed perjury when he said Q We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed therefore, A 's testimony for Q should be rejected [edit] Subtypes Three traditionally identified varieties include ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque. [edit] Ad hominem abusive Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that--usually, anyway--insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions. An example: "Jack is wrong when he says there is no God because he is a convicted felon." [edit] Ad hominem circumstantial Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. "Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests." The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy. It is important to note that the above argument is not irrational, although it is not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic. [edit] Ad hominem tu quoque Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a claim is dismissed either because it is inconsistent with other claims that the claimant is making or because the claim is about actions the claimant has engaged in, too. "You say airplanes fly because of physics, but this is false because you said earlier airplanes fly because of magic." "You cannot accuse me of libel because what you do is libel as well." The tu quoque form is often a specific kind of the two wrongs make a right fallacy. [edit] Taxonomy The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is often but not necessarily an appeal to emotion. Argumentum ad hominem includes poisoning the well.[/QUOTE]I quote J.S. Mill, "The uncultivated cannot be competent judges of cultivation." If you have someone who has a twisted or less than a firm grasp of what a situation is, how can you expect them to offer any reasonable input, and how can you expect to treat their input as having a reasonable and substantial basis? I don't think you can, honestly, and I think you actually need to evaluate that 4,000 years a bit more closely, because Freud wasn't the weirdo that many people try to color him as. Come to think of it, if Freud is widely hailed as the father of modern psychology, and his theories about the Id, Superego, and Ego, and dreams and so forth (the subconscious/slant influencing behavior), are being utilized more and more, and finding success as patients are able to overcome their fears and such, I think that punches a major hole in the entire argument against Ad Hominem. Psychoanalysis is no joke, lol. [quote]Does the mental state of a person color their arguements? Of course. But that has no bearing on whether or not what they are saying is true. [b]Truth is something that exists independant of the people talking about it and trying to understand it[/b].[/quote]Can the entire world live in peace? Just a simple question. I'd be interested to hear what your answer is. ~_^ EDIT: No worries about the reply, lol. No harm done. It's all good. My point is that if someone is clearly working off of an unrealistic state of mind, you have to take what they say with a grain of salt, and closely examine what they're saying, and why they're saying it, because chances are...they're not living in something we like to call reality, haha.

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Hardly. If everyone was as reasonable as you, DeathBug and many other admirable debaters, I wouldn't be whining and moaning about all this. It's a certain type of post-vivisection that I have a problem with--you know, when a member picks apart a reply and points to various lines as being indicative of something fatally wrong with the writer's upbringing, life choices, mental state, etc. By all means, you should feel welcome to demolish a poor argument. It's when people behave as though they must demolish the one doing the arguing that I grow irritated. Xander Harris probably did a better job of explaining my gripe than I did. :) ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] Dagger, I understand your point, and I do see where you're coming from, but you would be quite surprised just how much psychology (and the human psyche) affects life. I'm going to make a bold statement, but I think it holds true universally. Every single opinion, viewpoint, Ideology, worldview, perceptive stance, position, etc, are all strongly, [i]strongly[/i] influenced by the psychological make-up of the individual. There is almost nothing in the world that isn't influenced by psychology...perhaps the hard sciences, but on OB, the psychoanalysis rarely is brought into a discussion concerning the hard sciences, only the soft sciences (or social sciences, depending on what term you use). There's really no getting around the fact that we are driven by our psychological make-ups, and that's why bringing in psychoanalysis is often useful in determining how efficient a worldview is, or how efficient that worldview can ever be. I'll use The Terminator as an example. If you were discussing various thematic elements of the films with someone who absolutely hates the entire Trilogy, you're not going to have a good discussion, and if you don't understand why you're not having a good discussion, then you'll never gain any ground at all. Conversely, if the two discussing Terminator are both fond of the films, or at the very least, appreciative of them, then your discussion is going to be engaging and enlightening. My QT: The Films thread from a while back is yet another example of this. When those involved in the discussion aren't incredibly slanted in one way or another, able to discuss something more or less objectively, the discussion is going to be fantastic (which it was in that QT: The Films ^_^). A person's psychological make-up damn near dictates how that person is going to act, view the world, respond to the world, and talk about the world. If the person wants to see the world as a violent and cruel place, just a soulless machine, their worldview and posts will reflect that desire. If the person wants to escape reality and live in their mind, essentially (Solipsism), their worldview and posts will reflect that desire. In order to respond to those types of posts, you need to be able to realize just what kind of worldview is in play, and what the psychological make-up is that drives that worldview in order to be able to effectively counter both the superficial points and the deeper meanings underneath. Know what I mean?

One thing that I've been longing for is an original, 2D Metroid game on a console. I enjoy the GBA side-scrolling ones, and I'm in love with the Prime series, but an all-new side-scrolling Metroid game with Next-Gen console graphics...would be like buttah.

I think it's worth noting that Idealism, also known as Solipsism, is widely considered philosophical psychosis. To the Solipsist, the physical world is only an illusion, and therefore, they believe that a drag-race on a freeway isn't really happening, and because the external world is an illusion, it's perfectly safe to walk into traffic, because, well, they believe the traffic doesn't exist. Right...lol. Descartes demonstrated traces of Solipsism in his philosophy, actually, though he was far from eager to make that leap. Through his wax experiment, he was able to prove that the physical senses deceive us, because his senses were telling him that this (melted wax) wasn't the same wax as a hard candle, yet through Rationalism (innate ideas), he was able to know that it was indeed the same wax. In some respects, Rationalism is similar to Solipsism, you could say, but Rationalism is more or less intuition-based, while Solipsism...is just absurd, lol. I lean most towards Existentialism, honestly. We make ourselves. We're not guided by anything except what we want, and the choices we make.

Tony, I know what you mean about IGN, and I'm pretty leery of their reviews usually, but I checked out GameRankings.com, and the game is getting high marks across the board. ^_^

[quote name='Ri--er, Rang--, er, Ri--er...']Siren it's true. don't think like my brother-in-law; that because you haven't experienced it doesn't exsist.[/quote] I doubt it because I haven't experienced it? No. I doubt it because at this point, there's absolutely no reason for me to actually believe it happened, because as far as I'm concerned, and as far as a few other members here are concerned, we're hearing it from unreliable narrators.

[QUOTE=desertranger]Ky is 15. A rock climber member of the local search and rescue team and likes to think he's a homie even thougth we don't have any. He's a ggod kid and gets great grades. Mu is 17. The problem child. less than fair grades doesn't want to help but she does have a job. Ya is 21, mother and gooing to colleg. Rin a sucessfull geologist with published papers. Get a great paycheck. I don't see how her lifestyle has anything to do with that.[/quote] So, then, your children [i]aren't[/i] perfect, despite what Rin was saying earlier...what you just described here sounds nothing like the "Miss Mary Sunshine Leave it to Beaver" household that Rin was describing previously. So, we have a problem here. Either your household is the peachy-keen perfection that your "wife" is saying it is, or it has its faults, like you're unintentionally saying here, and your household in fact [i]isn't[/i] Leave it to Beaver. Which is it? Whose assessment is correct? Whose assessment is [i]realistic[/i]? There can be only [i]one[/i] correct assessment, mind you. [quote]Everybody is entitled to their dreams. That doesn't mean they have to come true.[/quote] When they're [i]realistic[/i] goals, and able to be achieved [i]without bending the very rules of existence[/i], I think they can come true very well. When those dreams can only happen in Fantasy Land, however...nope. [QUOTE]I have quite a few dreams and I think it's best if they never come true.[/QUOTE] Do share. [quote]I'm done here[/QUOTE] I'm glad you're done here, Ri--er, [i]Ranger[/i]. [quote=Adahn]I think I'll make a generalization here. Most people that post on OB are in their teens and twenties. Most people that are in their teens and twenties have friends/peers that are in their teens and twenties. Most of the stupid things that are said are said by people in their teens and twenties. Basically, I'd disregard almost everything anyone in this age range has to say about relationships, because the majority of people our age don't know jack sh-t about anything. They have no idea how you feel or what you think, and are really only pulling things out of their -sses, or drawing from the years of experience that their vast knowledge base consists of. If there's one thing I found, it's that adults are much more tolerant of relationships. The funny thing is that we the enlightened teenagers/young adults seek out and take heed of the wisdom of our peers, avoiding completely those who can actually help us. The least idiotic thing you can hear from anyone in our age range is, "I don't know." Good 'ole Socrates had the right idea a couple thousand years ago. True wisdom is knowing what it is you don't know. If wisdom had an opposite, it would be defined as thinking you know something when you really know nothing at all.[/quote] Survey says, "No."

Sara, you know what I'd say, even before I say it, heh, but I'll post it anyway. One of my biggest criticisms of OL is that too many members just don't know when to quit. Normally, I'd applaud that perseverance...when the members have something worthwhile to say, you know? When...they actually have a point that's relevant to the topic and is going to provide a [i]good[/i] discussion. Like Sol-Blade said, we just don't need people posting incoherent, spammy drivel about their personal lives when we're talking about Politics, Economics, History, etc. The issue is compounded even further, I think, when these members almost outright refuse to acknowledge they're "speaking" irrationally. I can understand when someone is just giving their opinion on something and they're not really looking for any type of validation (although, I can't remember the last time that's happened), but when it's clear that they're not going to be able to either lead the discussion or to have meaningful and enlightening contributions to that discussion that are going to lead to new ideas...I think it's time to whip out the pruning shears, as it were. I suppose I'll just use one of those familiar little buzz-phrases of mine: "It's one thing to have an opinion; it's something entirely different to have an uneducated opinion." If someone is spewing nonsense, they need to be expected to get called on it, you know? That's really my main beef. Solution-wise, or what could be changed...I think just a stronger emphasis on having coherent, easy-to-read posts, with a well-formed main idea and a few well-formed support points, so the incoherent gibberish and rambling is kept to a minimum. Basically, just emphasize that members think before they start typing. If they fail to do so, then they will have to suffer the consequences. That's my take on it. Sol-Blade, I got the funny. ^_^

Wow, funny me posting in a thread about a Star Wars game...twice. :p KOTOR II was released today, and IGN has their review up already. You can find it [url=http://xbox.ign.com/articles/569/569096p1.html][u]here[/u][/url]. Rarely in the past two years have I actually gotten giddy and bubbily excited about a game, but I'm absolutely bouncy about KOTOR II. I'm going to rent the game this weekend, so I'll post my review then, but this little tidbit from the IGN review has me going absolutely apesh-t: [quote name='IGN']KOTOR II's overall story is not quite as strong as the sweeping epic of the original, but its pieces are more compelling. Kreia, your de facto mentor, raises some interesting philosophical questions throughout your journey. KOTOR II is one of the rare Star Wars games that doesn't seem mystified by the universe, but instead approaches it with a sociologist's eye. What is the real difference between Jedi and Sith? How is that difference perceived by the common man (or Wookie or Twi'lek)? Does the Republic -- on the brink of dissolution -- deserve to be saved? Many raise these questions throughout KOTOR II, but Kreia is the main source of great dialogue and philosophizing.[/quote] Yes, Star Wars as told from the vantage point of what it really is: social, political, economic, and historical criticism.

It's like the deathmatch in EoN, lol. With the right people and the right conditions, it works. If we hear of a group of people who have gotten it (Socialism...not Everything or Nothing, heh) working, I think that will be monumental for a few reasons. One, it's going to get Marx the props he deserves, you know? Two, it's going to show that Marx's Socialism is in fact possible, and set an example...a guideline, a structure, for what the Marxist Socialist society should be. Three, it will give many people a sense of hope for a truly equal society. Sustaining the community initially will be difficult, certainly, and there's the risk of collapse more or less all the way through, but if done correctly, adhering to Marx's principles exactly, with a concerted effort on everyone's part...I think it would become extremely successful. I think Thomas More's Utopia is a work that should be considered a reference guide for the community, because it is probably one of the most balanced and well-planned/written/etc texts I've ever read concerning the perfect society.

Dmitry, I'm not arguing that Socialism is possible everywhere. I'm not even arguing that Marx's take on things wasn't flawed. It is. I'm not about to argue otherwise, and I haven't been arguing otherwise. I'm critical of the idea just as much as anyone else, because I'm very much aware of what human nature is like. It's a problem that Marx didn't take it into account, believing that humans are naturally good and honest workers. Most of us [i]are[/i] selfish little bastards, lol. But even though most are selfish little bastards, not everyone is, and that's why I'm saying that given the right people (not everyone, haha), the right mindset, and the right conditions, Socialism will work how Marx envisioned it. Now, yes, realizing those conditions and such is going to be extremely difficult, and I don't argue against that for a second, but it's still possible, just incredibly slim. If Socialism were possible on a national or international scale, I'd be all for it. But as it stands now, it's only possible in small groups, until we get the pesky power hunger in check. That's all I'm saying here. With the right people, Marx's Socialism will work. Where those people are, I have no idea, but with this big a world we're living on, I think there are people like that who are [i]genuinely[/i] (meaning, not putting up some Idealistic front) hard-working and good.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett]"Under God" is something that, I feel, has become more of a tradition now than anything else. It really doesn?t bother me that this is in the pledge, and I say it although I am not religious. Like the "In god we trust" on our money, it's part of a society based on Judaeo-Christian values. People need to stop being offended by things like this and be a little more passive. Especially since the pledge is optional...[/QUOTE] I agree entirely that people need to stop being whiny little biznitches. But even though "Under God" has become more traditional than anything else, I do think that the instructor's history lesson about the Christian background (not basis, heh) of the United States Founding Fathers was appropriate, because the way I see it, if you look at the chronology of the US Presidents, you notice a similar religious background, and I don't think that's pure coincidence. I'd go as far as to say that the reasoning behind adding "Under God" to the Pledge during the Cold War was more based on the country's history than the Atheism of our enemy. If we were Atheists, there wouldn't have been any problem. You dig?

[quote name='desertranger']Siren where do you get off dumping on someones beliefs. That's the same as calling someone a jew or n____r.[/quote] What makes you think I get off on it? I'm merely pointing out significant flaws in the worldview, nothing more. [QUOTE]You aren't even out of school yet, still wet behind the ears. What life experience do you have?[/quote] I know enough to know that running away from a problem is never the right thing to do, and it's only going to hurt more and more when the Cave comes crashing down. You know this just as well as I do, Ranger, don't deny that. [quote]Call Rin on somethng? All I did was see a rant bashing someone else, my wife after she apoligized and said she wished to offend no one and that it was her last post on this thread you continue to attack. The cowards approach, hit from behind.. And you continued your attack even after the moderators asked for a cessation.[/QUOTE] She was claiming to have never brought up her age, and I pointed out where she did. She denied ever adhering to the twisted Arthurian Chivalry dogma, and I pointed out precisely where she was. How is that bashing her? It's not. It's pointing out some serious contradictions that you know are there. [QUOTE]I suggest you actually study some of those books you talk about instead of just looking at the pictures.[/QUOTE] I know what you're trying to do here, and it's not going to work, I'll tell you that right now. What you said here is a petty insult, and has no basis in any type of reality. It has no precedent. What I said to your "wife" has precedent, and others here understand that, so, clearly, I'm not an exception. [QUOTE]I also suggest that you give up the idea of teaching since your posts show you are unfit to be trusted with the education of children. Not willing to accept other peoples beliefs no matter how strange is a sign of bigotry and intolerence. Bigots and the intolerant shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our children.[/QUOTE] Speaking of children, then, how old are yours? Rin rambled on and on about how well they behave, and how they do their chores without being asked (all phrased in present tense, mind you), etc etc, so I can't imagine them being any older than Middle Schoolers...Sophomores in high school at the most. I know that you're writing your reply because you're so pissed at me, and because I've insulted Rin and so forth, so I'm actually not going to treat your comments as having any validity whatsoever, because they're not being said in any clear-headed, rational, or realistic mindset. You're posting because you're angry, Ranger, and anything said in an emotioned passion will never be precise. [QUOTE]Rin took no offense at what you said., I did. and what you said pissed me off. People are entitled to their dreams and desires. They are entitled to happiness, even says so in writing. After watching her puppies have their heads literaly ripped off. After being assaulted and beaten. You have no right to do that to anyone. Online or off.[/QUOTE] Dreams and desires, sure. But when those dreams and desires are clouding one's judgment and cognition, and severely limiting their ability to think rationally and of sound mind, deluding them into some Escapist fantasy land of fairies and anime, something needs to be said, and you know this just as well as I do. [QUOTE]I also think Rin just proved her point about etequitte an manners. you have none.[/QUOTE] Something tells me that the hyper-emotional Escapist Pacifist is never an accurate judge of etiquette and manners, because, like the Smashboards Smash Melee Tier System Tourney Results, you're going to get a severely skewed outcome, due to the predisposition, slant, and skill (Melee) of the observer. [QUOTE]Which basically shows that you are an nothing more than an intellectual animal.[/QUOTE] Like I said above, the reactions and assessments of a hyper-emotional Escapist Pacifist are not suitable grounds for any type of character analysis, and likewise, the reactions and assessments of those very close to the hyper-emotional Escapist Pacifist, who would defend her at all costs, are equally slanted and unreliable. [QUOTE]Hooyah[/QUOTE] You keep cheering like that. Bet it's fun, eh? [quote]Damn censors.[/QUOTE] They're a hassle occasionally, but not too much.

[quote name='Lady_Rin']Is that reality you want me to wake up to?[/quote] If it's true, then yes. You can't keep running away from it forever, despite what you may want to believe.

[QUOTE=DeathBug]Yet, at the bottom of this post, you're going to tell me that my views are biased by my experiences. [b]So, which am I? Naive or experienced?[/b] You're saying that my notions are shaped by my life experiences? Gasp! Of course I'm biased, and of course it's due to my prior experiences; why does my mind have to be a blank slate before I can be said to be worthy of discussion? why wouldn't a person who has experience with something be welcomed in the discussion of the topic?[/quote] Think back to the little 3-page debate you and I had on NCLB. You were basing your view on experiences, but that doesn't mean you were [i]experienced[/i]. That's the key distinction you're dancing around here, lol. Anyone can have life experiences, but that doesn't mean they're going to be experienced, in the sense of being able to present a solid argument. That's why your statements are naive, even though you have had experiences. [QUOTE]I never said that it was. My point is, communism's been tried many times by many different societies, yet "true communism" has never been produced. Why? Perhaps it can't be; I believe it can't. The system is inherantly flawed. I have read Marx, and I'm fully aware of what the working conditions were during his life. I'm not at all supporting those conditions. I'm saying that his solution was flawed then, and continues to be flawed when presented to day.[/QUOTE] Inherently flawed, yep. But, and this is an important but, with the right people, and the right mindset, it will work. We just haven't seen it work, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm not arguing for Marx's Socialism or anything here, but I am requesting that you at least ponder the possibility that maybe, just maybe, it is possible and we just haven't reached that level yet. [QUOTE]I think it's foolish to dismiss these facts out of hand. The worst human-rights attrocities of the last century have been committed in the name of communism. Famous communist leaders read like a Who's Who list of crazy dictators. Ignoring history is dangerous.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about ignoring history. That was never my point. What I am saying, though, is that we need to understand that the history of the application of Marx's Socialism has always been severely skewed, and we should not be judging Marx's Socialism on the mis-application by a few power-hungry dictators, just like we shouldn't judge religion based on the mis-application by a few lunatic terrorists. You dig? [QUOTE]But, here's the important part: after the runaway economics and lassiez faire was reigned in, society had advanced, technologically and socially.[/QUOTE] And what were the targets of Marx's criticisms? And what was his goal? [QUOTE]I know More didn't believe in the idea of Utopia; why would he? [b]It was a judgemental and stagnant society that squelched individuality[/b].[/QUOTE] Read the portion about the religious heretic and you'll change your mind there. Utopia was based on balance, and their religious tolerance is evidence of that. The heretic wasn't going to be imprisoned because he held a different religious belief. He was going to be imprisoned because he was causing a public disturbance. [QUOTE]Of course they're similar; like you said, they were working under the same idea.[/QUOTE] A fair and balanced society, yeah. [QUOTE]And I have no perception of "true communism", per sae, because we've all agreed that "true c ommunism" hasn't been achieved. My view is that the attempts to reach it have been so disasterous that perhaps it's time to admit the concept isn't feasible or worthwhile. Again, how many times does it have to fail before it can be called a bad idea?[/QUOTE] And like I've been saying, don't judge Marx's Socialism on how it's been skewed, because...let's face it. Marx would freak out if he saw what dictators like Castro were doing. [quote]That there was me being snide; I'm rather irriated by US communists who enjoy the luxeries created by moderated capitalism and are deathly critical of it.[/QUOTE] Oh. Okay.

[quote name='Adahn']I've been misunderstood. There shouldn't be an uproar because the principal is very obviously wrong. I thought I made that clear, but I guess I did not. There's no argument. The principal was wrong.[/quote] Obviously wrong doesn't matter, because the teacher was being [i]targeted[/i]...that's discrimination, and it's perfectly appropriate to bring in a lawsuit, and it's perfectly appropriate for the uproar to become deafening. If I were a member of that community, I'd be up-in-arms, as well. Principal clearly wrong or not, there needs to be action taken, and I'm all for the community getting worked-up over it. The situation calls for it, essentially. Boba, more or less, that's right, but in asking why "Under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance, I think there's more of a backstory than just the Cold War, don't ya think? ;)

[quote name='Lady_Rin]Ranger?s comment and opinion, not mine. [b]I did not bring up my age and readily stated that and the difference between us[/b'].[/quote] You're about to get called on that: [quote name='Lady Rin previously']Ranger is 58, I am 41 the difference is 17 years. He still calls me a "cute and adorable young woman" and "my little girl".[/quote] You just got called on it. [QUOTE]I do not subscribe to the dogma that you think I do.[/QUOTE] You're going to get called on this later in the post. [quote]I am also at peace with myself for the most part and that has a lot to do with my reaction to that question. [b]However I know lots of women who do subscribe to that dogma and who do react unfavorably when asked.[/b] It is extremely prevalent far more than you think despite women?s equality etc..[/quote] Answer this, Lady Rin: "Why do you think so many women react unfavorably to that question?" I'll give you a hint. It's not because it's rude. [QUOTE]The Baron asked "Why?" So I answered as impartially as I could along with the question on why grown men shouldn?t be taking little girls to bed. I referred to a book. I did not state my opinion; I answered a question from [b]a book of etiquette[/b], which I use for more than what we are talking about.[/QUOTE] You're using a book of etiquette that pre-dates the Civil Rights Movement. [QUOTE]After all everyone should say please and thank you.[/QUOTE] And you need a book to tell you that? It's not just [i]common sense[/i]? [QUOTE]Will you please start living in reality? (I shall do reality on another thread, OK?)[/QUOTE] I don't think you can. [QUOTE]Why? I do what works for me, my family and our community. For the most part it works. It's not 100% but it is certainly in the upper 80s. As a parent certainly I like polite children with clean rooms. I really don't like hearing a string of expletives as can be heard on the CDs many teens listen to today. The reality is I can and do keep it out of my home along with excessively violent video games, controlled access to TV and a lot more. My children respect that. I don't hear the language from what they listen to at home as much as I hear it in public. That doesn't meant they don't listen, they do. They also play the games and watch the TV I disapprove of, I know this, Mom?s aren?t stupid. They do it where I can?t hear or see it. I also don't say they can't listen to it. I guess my reward is they don?t do drugs and they haven?t pierced their bodies. They also do their chores without being asked.[/QUOTE] You're not helping your children by restricting them, and do you know why? Because I grew up with Mortal Kombat, Doom, Street Fighter, GoldenEye, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, GI Joe, Sonic the Hedgehog, Super Mario Bros, X-men, Spiderman, Superman, Star Wars, Star Trek, South Park, Beavis and Butthead, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Alien, Terminator, 2001: Space Odyssey, Ghostbusters, Denis Leary, Lewis Black, George Carlin...the list goes on and on. Some of the things I mentioned there are violent and vulgar sh-t, and yet...I turned out just fine. In fact, I turned out better than fine. I can own a discussion in any one of my classes; I grasp concepts quicker than anyone in my Philosophy courses. Someone talks sh-t about T3, I'll call them on it and show them precisely why it doesn't violate any of the principles and thematic elements set forth by the first two films. I think both South Park and Denis Leary need to get listened to a hell of a lot more, because people need to hear what they're saying, because it's social commentary second-to-none. I'm going to rock the classrooms when I start teaching, because I'm damn good at what I do, and I'm not tainted at all by the violent shows and video games you forbid your children to see and experience. I'm all for the FCC, the ratings, the censorship and all that jazz, but if you believe your children are better off because you're restricting their life to essentially eating, sleeping, and doing their chores, you're lying to yourself. Despite your fears, violent TV and video games are not going to change your children overnight into some homicidal madmen. That's not how it works, and deep down inside you, you know that, but you can't admit to it. By the way, your children only respect you because you don't let them know anything else. Tell you what...you run a Google search for a woman named [b][u]Jen Giroux[/u][/b] and tell me what you find, and what you think of her. I have a feeling I know exactly what your reaction will be, and if you have the courage to post your reaction, then everyone here will know precisely what kind of person you are, and how you do not fit at all in modern society. [QUOTE]The discussion then turned to social relationships based on the original question as to how someone else might react. Again I gave examples of what I see or read. My personal opinion is; if you want is [b]deny your age[/b], stuff your face with botulism and do whatever other body restructuring you want to, go ahead [b]your only kidding yourself[/b] about your age and that's going to make your getting older harder when you really start to loose your innocent blush and doctors and toxins don't help anymore. [b]Most women I know fight tooth and nail to stay young, hide their age and don't ever make a reference to it[/b], these are professional women most of them in their 30s. I feel I still have my innocent blush and my health probably due to my accepting myself and not dosing myself with toxins. That too is reality.[/QUOTE] I'm going to repeat the question from before: "Why do you think so many women react unfavorably to that question?" I'll give you a hint. It's not because it's rude. [QUOTE]Now bear in mind our own generation gap here (another thread?). I grew up in a time and place that formally taught etiquette and manners, as did Ranger. [b]He still calls some people sir or mamm, he doesn?t have to. Opens the car door, holds a chair for me. Walks on the outside when we are walking down the street. Do you know why that is? He does a lot more as well. Again, he doesn?t have to; he just does it without thinking. It?s automatic.[/b] That means he will never let an expletive slip from his mouth in front of a client even if he?s angry and does have a very colourful vocabulary he can use. Unfortunately a few guides in the past have done just that, get angry and swear in front of a guest. That means immediate dismissal, no second chance. It?s bad for business to use foul language, even ?damn? or lose your temper in front of our guests. [b]That problem BTW is mostly among the younger guides, those

[quote name='Adahn']I don't think an uproar should be caused because the principal very obviously made a grave judgment error.[/quote] Oh, I think the uproar is quite justified. From what I've read/heard, the instructor was working entirely within the school's teacher protocol parameters. A student asked him a question that happened to relate to the topic at hand, that topic being the Pledge of Allegiance, the question being why do we say "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the course being a history course, the instructor then started to explore exactly why, (rightly) making note that the Fouding Fathers were more or less Christian, with a bit of variation between a few of them. If I were that instructor who got targeted like that, I'd take the school to the f-ck-ng cleaners. This instructor, however, just wants to continue to teach without those absurd restrictions, and the "uproar" we hear is people taking notice of the separation of Church and State gone too far and (rightly) speaking up.

[QUOTE=Adahn]Obtaining this 'proof' would ultimately be the parents' decision. If you can think of parents willing to send their 13 year old daughter to the doctor in the hopes of finding out she's sexually mature, I'd agree with you on that point. This puts more control in the hands of the parent. Now, if they don't want their 16 year old daughter to have sex, all they have to do is not allow her to be tested. Also, it protects 16 year olds who aren't ready for that sort of relationship.[/quote]What are you talking about? Going to the doctor to find out if their child is ready to have sex? "Tested"? You're spewing nonsense, Adahn. Stop trying to sound smart. [QUOTE]Oh, and the last time I had a playground was 5th grade, so if you could tell me of a school where 8th graders get recess, please tell me so I can spoil my children effectively.[/QUOTE]I don't see how your "point" here has any bearing whatsoever on both the topic at hand, and my original point, which was the fact that the girl playing on her school's playground should immediately be an indicator that engaging in a sexual relationship with her is wrong. [QUOTE]Of course emotional maturity can't be assessed, but physical maturity can. When someone is sexually mature, is that person still a child? Also, by physically determining whether someone is a child or not, by the definition of pedophilia, it is no longer applicable.[/QUOTE]Are you implying that a 16-year-old isn't a child? They're under 18, therefore, a minor, therefore, a child. Are you advocating "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"? I should hope you aren't. [QUOTE]Before driver's licenses were required, do you think people were happy about having to be tested? I'm not a history person, but I'm sure many people were unhappy at the least. The purpose of determining physical maturity is to protect those who aren't ready for sex, and allow those who are ready to have sex to do so.[/QUOTE]I don't see how driver's licenses relate at all here, because you're talking about operating a moving vehicle that requires time spent behind the wheel, evaluations, eye exams, etc. Only after one passes those criteria does one get issued a driver's license. You're advocating a sexual intercourse license, and that is utter bullsh-t. You've said before that you won't pretend to know enough about society to present any idea that's remotely applicable to society, so stop pretending. And if you continue to post with no substance at all, with sentences and paragraphs that mean absolutely nothing, and have no real value to them, that's spam, and is a violation of the Rules of OB. EDIT: Well, Solo, Adahn's nonsense here is the precise example of the "idiotic things that people say about relationships."