Brasil

[quote name='Adahn']I know I was personifying it, but not as Mother Nature. I specifically said, "I'm not personifying earth like that." I am treating the earth as a living organism, not one with a mind of its own or any emotions or feelings, but as something that can 'live' by supporting life, just as one can say any other ecosystem 'lives'.[/quote] Firstly, Mother Nature [i]is[/i] a personification of Nature. You may not realize it, you may not admit to it, but you [i]are[/i] treating Nature in that [i]specific[/i] way. The Earth is [i]not[/i] a living organism, too. It's simply matter, a celestial body that has no consciousness, no emotions, no feelings...a body that is simply there, not as anything that is "alive" in any way whatsoever. You're still personifying it, by saying it's alive. Again, stop pretending you're trained in Lit Theory, dude, because I actually [i]am[/i] trained in it. [QUOTE]I know it's bad, but would it be enough to ruin the possibility of any life on earth? So long as life exists on earth, I view it as alive.[/QUOTE] With enough of a radiation half-life from a global thermonuclear war that could last for a couple of centuries, if all the nuclear weapons in the world were to be utilized? I think that'd effectively ruin any possibility at all of any life on Earth. [QUOTE]I made no such claim. I said that we don't use nuclear warfare because of fear of 'retaliation'. Consequences is a better word, but retaliation still works. If we used nuclear weapons, there would be an uprising and overthrow of the government in our own country, not to mention having war declared on us by all nations who can put up a fight. I'd call that retaliation. [...] Environmental consequences coupled with retaliation from inside and outside our country are why we don't use nukes. We are in agreement on the terms of environmental consequences, but I don't know how you feel about retaliation, yet.[/QUOTE] If you say you made no such claim (though my choice of words was "treating," and these two terms are exceedingly different), let's examine the statement, then, shall we? [quote name='Adahn']The only reason we don't annihilate our enemies is because of fear of retaliation. There is no respect. We are not reducing the earth to an apple core, no, but we are slowly peeling away the many measures nature has taken to preserve life.[/quote] Now, pay attention to me here, because you need to understand what I'm saying. You do not have to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy. Read this very carefully, Adahn. You do not need to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy. We're annihilating the enemy already, and we're using conventional weaponry. There are no nuclear weapons being used, and we're still beating them. Let this sink in. You do not need to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the enemy, especially in a war that you're winning just by utilizing conventional weaponry. If we're already winning with conventional weaponry, why in the hell would we use nuclear weapons? Because it would mean an environmental cataclysm on a global scale. Retaliation is just a small part of it, because without a nuclear strike, there would be no retaliation, and without retaliation, there is no environmental cataclysm. Do you understand this? We do not use nuclear weapons not out of a fear of retaliation; we do not use nuclear weapons out of the knowledge that it will destroy the global ecosystem. This isn't a difficult point to understand. [QUOTE]I did attempt to backtrack, only to find out that I wasn't wrong to begin with, as I have shown.[/QUOTE] How did you show you were right? There's still a major, major error in your judgment, as I have shown above. [quote]We are so bad. We could preserve nature completely and halt the slow destruction of the earth, [b]but that would make too many people uncomfortable[/b]. We are the only creature in existence that puts comfortability above survival. We are doing everything [b]within the limits of our comfortability[/b]. The efforts do not hurt, but are they enough? Again, we only act [b]within the limits of our comfortability[/b]. Here, let me turn something else green. Will you stand by that statement? I think that if we really were concerned about our survival, we would do more than what we are doing now. There are better ways to halt our destruction of the earth, but, again, they fall outside [b]the limits of our comfortability[/b].[/quote] I'd think that the people involved in NJPIRG (an environmental clean-up group with a chapter on-campus here) would beg to differ. I routinely see pictures and read articles about them cleaning up rivers...they get up to their waist sometimes in dirty water, wading through it, just to make sure it's clean. They don't seem terribly comfortable to me. Call me crazy, but those cleaning up areas around oil spills do not seem too comfortable. As I recall, planting trees, trying to preserve national forests, etc, isn't all that easy on the back and legs. I do believe people recycle for a reason, too. And for those who aren't on the front lines, as it were, do you believe they're spraying aerosol cans outside, as they say, "Global warming? **** that. Screw the grandkids, I'm cold now."? There is car emission testing to cut down on the pollutants found in car exhaust. People are being encouraged to conserve our natural resources, and people are making a conscious effort to conserve our natural resources. Adahn, mankind is not obsessed with destroying the environment. We're not locusts, which, incidentally, are one of the greatest threats to the environment, because they destroy so many different types of vegetation. In recent years, endangered species are being protected more and more, with strict penalties if you should go out and kill say, a panda. You're trying to portray mankind as some evil, destructive entity that's going to doom the environment, who cares very little about what goes on in the environment. Your claim is obviously [i]false[/i]. [QUOTE]I agreed with you on the point that nuclear war would be disastrous to the environment. I didn't somehow arrive at that conclusion in this thread. I would say that on that point, we are in agreement.[/QUOTE] I've been saying it all along, and only recently have you started to echo those comments, the same comments of mine that have emphasized the reasons why we do not use nuclear weapons, the same comments of mine that are praising mankind for not using nuclear weapons to win conflicts that can be won with conventional weaponry. [QUOTE]Again, research is a good thing (it's what I plan to go into), but it's not enough.[/QUOTE] Do you expect insta-technology? [quote]I started the argument as a tree-hugging hippie, and by I will end it as one.[/QUOTE] And the tree-hugging hippies have never done any good whatsoever, because they're always more concerned with their image than actually doing anything about anything. Tree-hugging hippies are the ones who give the environmentalist movement a bad name. Good job.

[quote name='Adahn']I'm not personifying earth like that.[/quote] Yes, you are: [quote name='Adahn]I specifically said we couldn't irreparably harm the earth. [b]The earth didn't need[/b] the dinosaurs. [b]It had everything it needed[/b] to perpetuate life. The [b]earth really doesn't need[/b'] its fossil fuels.[/quote] [quote name='Adahn][b]Nature will [u]have the last laugh[/u][/b], as we ruin our water supply, overpopulate the earth, consume all its natural resources, and destroy its atmosphere. [b]All it has to do is get rid of us[/b], and [b]it will restore[/b'] order once again.[/quote] You're referring to both Earth and Nature as having [i]human[/i] qualities (laughter, having needs, desires, goals, etc). That's personification. You're treating Earth and Nature like they're human, Adahn. Remember, you are not trained in Lit Theory, so don't pretend to be. [QUOTE]So, you're saying that nuclear winter would cause so much damage to the earth that it would never be able to support any type of life ever again? If this is what you're saying, and you're right, then I'll have to drop that argument and yield. I am saying that Earth was meant to support life, and that nothing we can do can upset that balance. However, if we upset it enough, we can do enough damage so that it won't support us. I still disagree with your thoughts on nuclear winter. The earth has been through worse things, especially in its beginnings, and yet here we are.[/quote] Break the two eventualities down. Asteroid sends dust up into the atmosphere, causing climactic weather and ecosystem changes. Nuclear warfare sends [i]radioactive[/i] dust up into the atmosphere, along with massively contaminating plant life, water, soil, animal life, and in global thermonuclear war, you're talking about a veritable blanketing of mushroom clouds. That's a lot of contamination and radioactivity. It may not seem it, but nuclear war is going to be far, far, far more hazardous and crippling to Earth's ecosystem than just an asteroid slamming into us. Just think about it. [QUOTE]I'm only talking about the use of nuclear weapons. I haven't said a word about the war on terror. The only reason we don't use nuclear weapons is because we fear the consequences, just like you said in the part I turned green. What you're doing is you're inventing arguments, putting my name behind them, and shooting them down.[/QUOTE] I'm not inventing arguments at all. You were treating nuclear warfare as the only way to annihilate our enemies, when, clearly, based on the War on Terror, your claim is [i]false[/i]. Like Godel has said, "retaliation" and "consequence" are actually very different words, with very different meanings. "Retaliation" is [i]specifically[/i] an [i]attack[/i] done in response. "Consequence" is simply cause and effect. They're not the same word (or the same meaning), but you're still trying to establish some type of correlative link between the two. Pay attention to this: they are nowhere near the same idea. Remember, you're not trained in Lit Theory. Don't pretend to be. With that said, you used "retaliation" first. Either you have a very substandard vocabulary and grasp of the finer points of the English language, or you indeed meant to use "retaliation," got called on it, and now are trying to backtrack. I personally feel it's a combination of the two. Now, in this entire thread, you've been preaching how horrible man is, how man is destroying nature, how man treats nature as something to be destroyed or subjugated, etc, but now you're saying we're not so bad? You see, it's not a matter of [i]me[/i] now agreeing with [i]you[/i]. It's a matter that [i]you[/i] are now agreeing with [i]me[/i]. Look at what I've been saying all along, and even back when you used "retaliation." I was always saying that we don't use nuclear weapons because it would be disastrous to the global environment. I've been saying that all along, Adahn, and now you're saying the same thing, when only a few posts back, you were portraying man as some evil and destructive force that seeks to "rape" nature and that knows absolutely nothing about preserving nature. Your argument is pulling a 180 and you don't even realize it. [QUOTE]Efforts? What does it amount to? We are polluting the environment less quickly. We are eliminating the rainforests at a slower rate. We are using up the fossil fuels at a slower rate.[/QUOTE] I think the pure and simple fact that we [i]are[/i] concerned, that we [i]are[/i] taking action and undertaking efforts to help in those areas is proof that humans [i]do[/i] care, and is punching a major hole in your argument that humans don't give a sh-t about the environment. Why minimize the actions of various environmentally-concerned groups, Adahn? They're doing good work. They're cleaning up the Earth. What's wrong with that? Isn't that what you wanted the entire time? [QUOTE]Developing new types of energy sources is something I can't argue with. This is a very good thing.[/QUOTE] And there's research being done for it every single day. Another hole is punched into your argument. [QUOTE]Here's an analogy. The destruction of the global environment is like a ball rolling downhill. We are not exerting enough force to stop its descent, much less move it back up. If we don't exert enough force, the ball will make it to the bottom of the hill. When that happens, the earth will no longer be able to support us, and we will die.[/QUOTE] Even though the future may look grim, I hardly think that constitutes your Nihilistic treatment and assessment of the human race, Adahn. Don't be a tree-hugging hippie. [QUOTE]Consequences are consequences, Siren. Again, you're agreeing with me here (I turned it green again).[/QUOTE] Like I said above, your argument is pulling a 180 and you don't realize it. You're now agreeing with me. It's not the other way around. [QUOTE]My point is that we are not nature savvy. We do care, but not enough to stop that ball from rolling, and surely not enough to push it back up the hill.[/QUOTE] So, because we're unable to make everything hunkydory [i]perfect[/i] (but seriously...has there [i]ever[/i] been a "[i]perfect[/i]" ecosystem?) again...invalidates any and all efforts to help improve the ecosystem? I think that we are nature savvy, just because we see the problem and are addressing it in the best ways that we can at this point in time. Being "nature savvy" does not mean being a magician, Adahn, and I'm getting that you've got some Idealistic view of what "nature savvy" really means.

I figured I'd drop a post in this thread for no reason other than I'm bored, lol. Actually, that's not the entire reason...in fact, it's not the reason at all. I was at Best Buy this past weekend, doing a bit of Xmas shopping and checking out the new game releases and stuff, when I turned the corner out of the PS2 aisle (don't ask me what in the hell I was doing in there, because I have no idea myself), when, suddenly, there, in the end-cap kiosk, was a peculiar-looking display of a dual screen Nintendo system. They were running a demo of Metroid Prime: Hunters. :D I literally stopped and stared. Melissa had to pinch me to get my attention, heh. Luckily, the guy playing it there got tired of it or something, and stepped away. I furtively glanced around like Bluto in Animal House, then wrapped my hands around it and started running around, blasting Metroids. I must say, it was [i]incredible[/i]. It's not without its little faults, though, but I blame those more on Best Buy's set-up there. The angle of the DS screens was weird, the lighting was bad, and my neck was craned at an angle. I'm incredibly impressed, though, with the DS. The controls were actually quite good, albeit a bit weird. I was initially incredibly leery of the stylus for an FPA, but it's awesome, lol. It's literally [i]point-and-kill[/i]. Each [i]tap with the stylus on the touch screen, and you're blasting[/i]. Awesome stuff when you get the hang of it. My criticism of this, though, is I'd have preferred being able to turn with the D-pad, instead of guiding myself with the stylus. Each time I had to turn, I shot. It's just a bit iffy...doesn't feel quite right. Strafing with the D-pad was...eh, as well. I've read there have been revamps to this, though, so that's good. ^_^ But all in all...unbelievable experience. I'm really, really impressed. :D

[QUOTE=Adahn]Irreparable: Impossible to repair, rectify, or amend: irreparable harm; irreparable damages. The earth survived whatever cataclysm killed every single dinosaur. It took a while, but I'd say it did a pretty good job of repairing itself. If a couple nukes can do more than that, then I guess I don't know what nuclear winter really does. Of course, you can't either, seeing as it's never happened before.[/quote] Nuclear winters are irreparable damage. It takes hundreds of years for the half-life to dissipate if there were to be a nuclear war on a world-wide scale, and even then, you're not looking at any substantial re-growth, because unlike simple dust and debris being scattered into the atmosphere, you're looking at radiation poisoning, genetic deformities/mutations, contamination on a global scale. An asteroid smacking into Earth is only a fraction of what is possible with nuclear winters. Also, the "Earth" didn't do anything to repair itself after the extinction of the dinosaurs, so I don't know why you're attributing the survival and multiplication of small mammals after their [i]larger predators[/i] died out to some...Earthly Goddess. The Earth as a Mother figure, which is what you're trying to portray it as, had absolutely nothing to do with anything. There is no "Mother Nature" in reality. Remember that. "Mother Nature" is again a human's creative explanation/rationalization of what they cannot understand and/or what is beyond their comprehension. Think Gilgamesh, Iliad, Odyssey, the Bible. [QUOTE]Perhaps I should have said consequences instead of retaliation. The two are related, and [b]we both know I'm not an English major[/b].[/quote] And like I've told you before, don't pretend to be. [quote]EDIT: retaliation: action taken in return for an injury or offense. consequence: Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. Close enough for me.[/QUOTE] This doesn't help your original point at all, and here's why. You said, [quote name='Adahn][b]The only reason we don't annihilate our enemies is because of fear of [consequences][/b']. There is no respect. We are not reducing the earth to an apple core, no, but we are slowly peeling away the many measures nature has taken to preserve life.[/quote] Now, if you were following the news, we're engaged in a very serious effort to seek out, attack, destroy, and [i]annihilate[/i] our enemies so they cannot attack us any further. [b]You're trying to say there that we're using a "Hands-Off" approach to war because we're afraid of [consequences][/b]. That's bullsh-t, and you would see that if you were following the news and the [i]reason[/i] why we're fighting the War on Terror. I'm not that big of a supporter for some aspects of it, but the precise reason we're [i]hunting these people down[/i] (read: annihilate them--a "Hands-ON" approach) is to [i]prevent[/i] any type of [consequence], and we're annihilating them with [i]conventional[/i] weaponry instead of nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons would be overkill, because it wouldn't achieve any better result (i.e., annihilating our enemies), and would totally destroy the ecosystem. The only reason we don't engage in nuclear warfare is because it would be disastrous to the world. [QUOTE][b]We're only concerned with the environment when its effects are immediate and terrible[/b]. Nuclear bombardment would affect us (politcally and environmentally, as you said). It's the [b]slow burning of fossil fuels, burning away of the ozone, pollution of lakes, rivers, and oceans, and other things such as harvesting the rainforest[/b] that are going to get us, because they don't immediately hurt us.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but am I just imagining the efforts to help clean up our environment, preserve the rainforest, conserve our fossil fuels, develop new types of energy sources, etc? [quote]As for me spewing nonsense, you brought up nuclear war, and it is the focus of your argument. By missing one word (retaliation instead of consequence), my entire argument seems worthless to you. If you want a good debate, do it on a broader scale, and don't pick away at my post looking for misuse of words.[/QUOTE] Picking away at your post looking for misuse of words? How about even after replacing "retaliation" with "consequence," your argument that humans don't give a damn about the environment/nature still makes no sense whatsoever, because we're annihilating our enemies already and just using conventional weaponry. The environmental "consequences" of using nuclear weapons are why we're not using nukes. You're trying to say that we're not "Nature-savvy," but we are, even in war. It's just not terribly obvious. What's your point? Baron, it is respecting nature, in a way. Think about it. Nuclear combat is going to seriously destroy our planet's ecosystem, and we know that. I don't think any of us would deny that, do you? It's really self-preservation out of environmental preservation. Get what I'm saying?

[quote name='Adahn']Yes, we do have the capability to destroy the ourselves quickly and efficiently. However, you would be hard-pressed to kill every single creature (namely cockroaches), and irreparably harm the earth.[/quote]I think a nuclear winter is pretty much irreparably harming the Earth, Adahn. You're talking about killing off all the vegetation, all of the animal life, contaminating the atmosphere for centuries, spewing all kinds of radiation into the air, mixing it into the water, destroying entire ecosystems, etc. If you still want to say that isn't irreparably harming the Earth, then you're just ignoring what nuclear winter [i]really[/i] does. Hell, with that level of eco-destruction associated with nuclear winter, [i]there is no nature left[/i]. The Earth becomes a dead celestial body, like the Moon. [quote]The only reason we don't annihilate our enemies is because of fear of retaliation. There is no respect. We are not reducing the earth to an apple core, no, but we are slowly peeling away the many measures nature has taken to preserve life.[/QUOTE]No, the reason we annihilate our enemies is because of fear of continued attacks. Let's take Afghanistan, for example, since we're talking about global conflict, and Afghanistan was pretty much the first step in the War on Terror. The US could have easily nuked the whole of that country, just laid the entire mountain ranges to waste, obliterated the entire thing...the US could have made Afghanistan the Dresden of the War on Terror. Just reduce the entire country to cinders, really, make it so no life at all could ever live there again. Yet, the US didn't, even though we had the capabilities, and even though we were hunting down our enemies. The US didn't bomb Afghanistan back into the Stone Age because using nuclear weapons would have been distastrous both on a global [i]political[/i] scale, and on a global [i]environmental[/i] scale. I've said time and time again that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction, which is what you're talking about here), a relic from the Cold War, when there were only [i]two[/i] nuclear superpowers in control, is simply a non-factor these days. You can't claim that MAD is the reason we don't use nuclear weapons, lol. We don't use nuclear weapons because it would mean the end of life as we know it, and plunge the Earth into a major environmental shitstorm that it may very well never recover from. We're already annihilating our enemies and we're not using nuclear weapons. That's a pretty big sign that we're very concerned about the environment, Adahn. Humans are not "evil," and nature is not "good." [i]Come on[/i]. You're spewing nonsense.

I've been playing Halo 2 for about 2 hours now, and it's pretty fun. I do have a problem with the level design; it seems really...multi-directional, and I found myself wandering aimlessly for too long only to stumble across the objective, lol. Once I got down onto Earth, it was a bit better, and I started getting into my groove-thang. My initial impressions are it's a solid combat FPS. Certainly not the greatest ever, but it's solid. I'm looking forward to having a run online, once I get the controls set where I want them. The sensitivity has got to get changed, lol. Halo 2 isn't the best thing since sliced bread, but it's good bread, nonetheless.

[quote name='Adahn']We may do very little damage in terms of the planet as a biosphere, but we're getting there.[/quote] Oh, we're there right now. The world has more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth, to blanket the sky with a nuclear winter, to kill off just about every single form of life on the planet. And yet, that's not happening, now is it? I'd say that's a pretty big sign of humans respecting the natural world, Adahn. After all, we haven't gone and reduced the world to an apple core, even though we're quite able to, if we put our minds to it. [i]Come on[/i], lol. Don't start another Christianity thread.

[quote name='Godelsensei']Saying that it's somehow wrong for us to have developed as far as we have is saying that it is wrong for us to have learned to surpass creatures that are naturally stronger, claws-and-teeth-wise than we are, for our own survival, which basically negates your argument.[/quote] Excellent point, Godel. It definitely deserves consideration. What you just described is precisely what the Animal Kingdom is: Dog-Eat-Dog, Darwinian Conventions...Survival of the fittest. If anything, we've just simply utilized what has been utilized by animal and pre-human alike throughout the history of the world: The better, smarter and stronger survive.

You know, there's a point here that people usually miss. "Simplicity" doesn't necessarily mean Gradius or SMB1 as compared to, say, Rebel Strike or Whiplash. Hear me out on this. Generally speaking, when a game's totally addictive, that means it's done incredibly well, and there are virtually no flaws at all in the game design itself. The original SMB1 is addictive as hell, but so is KOTOR. Pacman is addictive as hell, but so is Melee. Now, it's clear which are the more "complex" games here, but they're all simple games in that they're easy to play, and achieve what the designers set out to do. If I'm not explaining this properly, I'll use cinema as a comparison point. Hell, let's talk Star Trek II: Wrath of Kahn versus The Matrix Trilogy, since I'm going to be talking about Melvillian influences in both, hehe. Both films are Moby Dick, essentially. They incorporate the same themes, characterizations, and conflicts. They're both equally complex in terms of the "Ahab-ness" of their respective "Ahab" characters. But Wrath of Kahn is more addictive because it accomplishes what it sets out to do. Everything "clicks." The acting is impeccable (Ricardo Montalban...come on, the man is a god, lol), the writing is sharp, and the thematic elements are really breathtaking. The set-up is handled incredibly well, and the ending is a very good and well-constructed wrap-up. We can all agree that The Matrix Trilogy falters in the delivery. They're good films, but like the Star Wars Prequels, you have to get past a lot of the superficial stuff to get to the heart of the story. They're somewhat unfocused in this regard; they could have been handled better. I think this is an important point to consider. What if a game's addictive nature is based on a "simplicity" that's really only based on how effective the game is? Meaning, like Wrath of Kahn, everything in a game "clicks," regardless of how much they're packing in there. Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow is a pretty complex game, but it's addictive, I think, because it knows exactly what it needs to do, and nails it. I think the same can be said for the NES-era games, and likewise, for some newer generation games like KOTOR. They're addictive because they're simpler, because their execution is impeccable. I hope that made sense, lol.

[quote name='Adahn']This is not so easy, but I will do what I can. In the case of the hive mind, every individual has a purpose. Every single bee or ant is useful. They are all a family.[/quote] Ben is entirely right. I would hardly classify a bee's societal structure as "individual-oriented" or even as a "family." The bees are called "worker [i]drones[/i]" for a reason. There's a reason bees search for honey, and then report back to the hive, to let all the other bees know where to find the honey, so it can benefit the [i]hive[/i], [i]not[/i] the individual bee. The "individual" bee has one purpose and one alone: to serve the hive. The bee is an automaton; it exists only to serve the hive. There is no love; there is no family; there is no individual; there is only the hive. Your point is as clumsy as it is stupid. (Who's going to get the reference?) [QUOTE]The same goes for the pack animals. They will take care of the young and old because they are useful members of the pack. However, when a member of the pack is wounded, or incapacitated in any way, it is abandoned. They take care of their young because of instinct. They are programmed to do so, because their species would die off if they didn't.[/QUOTE] The pack animal acts because it is forced to; humans act because they care. I don't see how this makes Nature better than Civilization. If anything, this is a major blow to the "Nature is better" argument. You're essentially saying that pack animals help because they need to; otherwise, they would die out. Humans are quite the opposite: humans help because they [i]want[/i] to. [QUOTE]Any creature that works together in this way does so because it is in a family unit. Our society is not based on this. We have taken into ourselves all manners of people, and the individual's function in society is lessened.[/QUOTE] There's a distinction that needs to be made between "pack" and "family unit." What you're describing for Nature is Dog-Eat-Dog. That's a far cry from what human family units--and the family unit in general--are. I'm getting that you're trying to say that human family units don't help each other when each other needs help? I guess my entire extended family on my Mom's side helping my Aunt Sue when my Uncle Wayne had a [i]quadruple bypass[/i] last year isn't an example of human families helping each other in times of need? I suppose my entire Mom's side helping to fix up my Aunt Denise and Uncle Mike's house over an entire weekend isn't an example of family helping each other in times of need? Or what about helping my cousin, Stacey, move into her new house with her husband, Reggie, and their 1-year-old daughter, Chloe? Come on, lol. Your argument is totally asinine. [quote]If you want my opinion on what is natural for humans, I would point you in the direction of native tribes. You may call them undeveloped people, but I would say that we are overdeveloped. People were not meant to exist like we do. It is we who exist in the chaotic environment.[/QUOTE] What is this "meant to exist" crap? Humans have opposable thumbs. They have more highly-developed brains. They have higher levels of cognition. They have a creative consciousness. Why in the hell are humans [i]not[/i] supposed to utilize those skills? I've always found elevator rides to be pretty damn smooth, too, so...where's the chaos there? I can always get a Weather report, any time of the day, so...where's the chaos there? Offices and retail outlets get busy as hell, yes, but that's just a business rush; it's not "chaos" in the way you're trying to use the term.

I understood your "point" perfectly well, Adahn; it's just that your "point" was total BS, because there was never any mention made, nor any support of, reincarnation in the Bible. You need to accept that, and stop blaming other people for your mistakes, okay? That said, the threads in question were lapsing into total spam (Panda actually had deleted a few posts in a few of those threads), and the discussion was starting to lapse into yet another huge circle. I was very, very tempted to simply quote one of Ben's earlier remarks, to show how the thread was going in one big circle. There was no benefit in those threads, because the thread topic didn't encourage any [i]real[/i] discussion at all, because the thread topic was asinine at best. It was a crap topic. I think the only reason it actually got replies was because people needed to express how much of a crap topic it was, quite honestly. Half of the replies in there were actually saying just that. The criteria for closing threads is listed in the Rules section, right to the left, in that sidebar there. It's under "General." I think it was exceedingly clear why Panda closed those threads, too, just like it's exceedingly clear to Baron and AzureWolf. The thread was mindless, circular spam.

For those who have known me for a while now, and who have seen me debate on here, and on MyO, they know of one of my little catchphrases, "It's one thing to have an opinion; it's something entirely different to have an uneducated opinion." Really, I think that's the core issue here, because, like Boba has said, when someone can't back up their argument worth a damn without lapsing into useless, circular rhetoric and hazy, ill-defined misinterpretations that possess no real point or relevance to the topic at hand, that person simply shouldn't even open their mouth to begin with. But what happens when that person does open their mouth and start spewing gibberish? They have to be prepared to be called on their BS, and to back the hell down, to admit defeat, and not drag things out needlessly, or having to have a Mod step in, because it's a waste of everyone's time, quite honestly. And really, if someone posts incoherent gibberish and a vague, unfocused, hazy idea to start a thread or something like that, something that's not going to encourage adequate and worthwhile discussion--something that is essentially long-winded spam--, I believe the Rules advise to not post the thread, and start it when there's actually a coherent topic to discuss. Being vague and wishy-washy never helps anyone, but on the other hand, being stubborn and ignorant and utterly, blindly, and hopelessly devoted to a nonsense, BS viewpoint is just as bad, I think. Feelings are nice to have and all, but in a discussion where facts and concrete pieces of Literary evidence are needed, feelings mean jacksh-t.

[QUOTE=Adahn]Umm, you just don't understand, do you? I made the distinction. Being born again is accepting Jesus sacrifice, and being made pure by it. This is the rebirth, the resurrection. Reincarnation is what happens if one is not resurrected during life. Reincarnation: Going from death to death. A terrible cycle, as you said before. Resurrection: Going from death to life. This is being saved, yay. We who live in this world are born in sin. We are dead. We who live in this world and are reborn in Christ have no sin. We are alive. Those who are alive live forever. Those who are dead die forever.[/QUOTE] There is no reincarnation mentioned in the Bible at all. Any reference to being reborn, rebirth, brought up from the darkness, back from death, etc, refers to the Last Judgment, where all are judged, where the dead are resurrected to be judged, and those deemed worthy are lifted up from the darkness, into Heaven. Your...[i]thing[/i]...is Adahnism, and it's not based in Christianity at all.

[quote name='Adahn']Again, let me point out that my feelings, opinions, and ideas are open to change. I often argue for the fun of it, especially against where my own feelings lie. I can't stand up to the good sense presented here, so I gave up my little fight.[/quote]Then you're a walking contradiction, and a mindless meatpuppet drone who does what he's told.

[quote name='Adahn]You don't believe me? I'm not a liar, rainkius. I voted no on proposal 2, and was pissed when it passed in my state. [b]I have an aunt in a same-sex relationship, and I look fondly on the both of them. I'm very disappointed that I won't be able to see them get married.[/b'] I would have appreciated that. It sucks even more, because our state went to Kerry, and it still passed.[/quote] Okay, so, if you're actually [i]Pro[/i]-Same-sex marriage, then how do you explain all the talk in the beginning of this thread, when you were so adamant about how male-male relationships should not even progress into romance, and how wrong it was? [i]Come on[/i]. [quote]As for everything else, I think love is an odd thing. I think it exists in all of us, and certain things bring it out. It's easier to love people you like and trust, but you don't need those things for love. Everyone has the potential to love everyone else.[/QUOTE] That's quite a radical departure from what you were saying when you started this thread.

Got news for ya, bub. "Born again" is not reincarnation. "Born again" is [i]resurrection[/i]. There is a very distinct difference. [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reincarnation][u]reincarnation[/u][/url] [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=resurrection][u]resurrection[/u][/url] They're two entirely different ideas that mean entirely different things, with reincarnation being Buddhist or Hindu, and resurrection being Christian. The Bible talks about [i]resurrection[/i], and those quotes you're supplying are talking about [i]resurrection[/i]. "Born again" refers to being resurrected [i]once[/i], in keeping with Christ's rise after his crucifixion, in keeping with the rising of the dead for the Last Judgment. One "born again," not repeated, like reincarnation. Just give it up, dude, just give it up.

[quote name='Lady_Rin']The traditional morals and values I try to teach my family are honesty andfairness and love, not to intentionally harm anyone, that means no bigotry, and to protect family, even the not so good ones. We used to tell the children; love each other, be polite and zero BS. That's all. It seems to have worked.[/quote] And I think this is a very important point to consider. I think your definition of "traditional morals" is the best one any society can have, because it's all about acceptance and love, not bigotry or social restriction. And really, I think that's the core of the issue right there. Many, many relationships that may be "nonconventional" still have that closeness and mutual love and respect you're talking about. I'm glad you brought all of that up, because really, that's what traditional morals are and should be: acceptance and love.

[quote name='Adahn']I've found someone I think I can have a worthwhile discussion with, an actual Christian. I just got tired of arguing back and forth with you. The discussion was going nowhere between us. If it bothers you so much that this thread is still open, focus your attentions elsewhere. As far as I can tell, the discussion is still on topic.[/quote] You [i]do[/i] realize that [i]Ben[/i] is an actual Christian (he said so in the thread itself, for crying out loud), and Boba Fett has a Christian background? Come on, dude, you had actual Christians arguing with you before. Adahn, you already had Christians replying to you, who countered you, called you on your crap interpretations, and you ignored them, lol. Tsk tsk.

So, for someone like Yours Truly, who didn't really enjoy the original at all, and who found it pretty dull and cliched, and who's going into Halo 2 with more or less indifference, will I have a good time?

I'd just like to point out that there has already been 13 pages in this thread, and numerous people have pointed out numerous times that Adahn has absolutely no idea what in the hell what he's talking about, and I've already pointed out that his "interpretation" about Revelation is totally bunk. I'm also wondering why Adahn continues to reply, even after he said he was done with this thread... Not to play Mod here, but could someone [i]please[/i] close this thread now? It's fairly obvious that this new debate isn't going to bring anything new or worthwhile to the discussion, and there was a wrap-up earlier in the thread anyway.

Well, though I've not heard Alterbridge's material...I can only assume that without Scott Stapp, their music is exponentially better, heh. Stapp's voice and pretentious "Holy Man" routine got real old, real fast, and his voice was godawful. I haven't even heard of Alterbridge, but if there's no Scott Stapp, Alterbridge all the way.

Ah, but if she had enough sense to sleep her way to the top, doesn't that make her a [i]better[/i] tactician? ;)

[quote name='Adahn']If I had my own stalwart opinions, I wouldn't have started any threads. The only person who's going to change their opinion because any of this is me. I'm bitter because you're mean.[/quote] It seems that the only reason one would start threads is if they have something to say, that is to say, [i]state an opinion[/i]. Why else would you start threads, other than to provide vapid and meaningless discussion that's a waste of people's time? And, if you didn't have an opinion about anything, why have you said what you've said? That is to say, if you had absolutely nothing to contribute opinion-wise, why have you used, "[i]in my opinion[/i]." You do have your own stubborn opinions. Don't try to deny that one. We've seen it too much in the past week, Adahn. I'm not mean, either. I just don't sugarcoat things. So, your reason for being bitter is weak at best. [QUOTE]*likes being called pretty* Hmm, what do mindless drones do? They follow instructions and do what they're told. Is that what I seem to be doing to you? I'm constantly changing, so I think I'd make a terrible mindless drone.[/QUOTE] Mindless drone means someone who doesn't have any substantial thought in their head (does without thinking). Mindless drones offer little to no beneficial conversation or discussion, and given how useless your topics and posts are, and how lacking of substance they are, I'd say the label of "mindless drone" fits you very well, no offense. [QUOTE]Tell me what relationships I don't agree with. For every person who's happy just to casually have sex, there's another person who thinks it means something. When those two people come together, it is not a good thing.[/QUOTE] Casual sex relationships; one night stands; same-sex relationships; really, anything that doesn't fit into the archetypal Leave it to Beaver family. There's absolutely nothing in your posts to suggest that you approve of anything other than the Cleavers. [QUOTE]There's always a better way to ask a question. Are there any criteria that make a relationship wrong? I'll start you off with an easy one; a threatening, abusive husband/boyfriend.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't disagree for a second that something should be done about abusive relationships, because, let's face it. Nobody deserves to be beaten. Physical abuse is wrong. Having said that, however, I don't see how an [i]abusive[/i] relationship's "rightness" or "wrongness" has any bearing on a [i]healthy[/i] relationship's "rightness" or "wrongness," because they're pretty much unrelated. Nobody in their right mind would argue that an abusive relationship shouldn't be corrected, and you'll see that my entire focus previously has always been centered on healthy relationships, relationships in which people are happy, not getting beaten. So, I don't really think bringing up abusive relationships will help bolster your point about relationships being right/wrong, because we've always been talking about healthy relationships. [QUOTE]When one person hurts another person, it's wrong. When people insult their friends behind their backs, it hurts me. You seem like an honest person to me. I trust that if you had anything to say about me, you'd say it to my face. That, and you've already said alot to my face. I hate having to say face, when I've never really met you, but you know what I mean.[/quote] I'm brutally honest, and I'm totally up-front with you here, aren't I? What difference does it make if I'm asking Jordan about you? You know just from my posts here what I think of you, so, I'm actually not being deceitful at all. And, I'm much harsher here than I was in the conversation with Jordan. I tell things straight-up. That's what I do. I don't sugarcoat things, and I don't talk behind someone's back without them knowing [i]precisely[/i] how I feel about them. That's what happened here, so you have no grounds on which to indict me in any wrongdoing, Adahn. I don't hide what I think, and I don't mince words. [quote]I stopped arguing because I said no good could come if it. It was made clear to me that you wanted me to stop posting, so I aquiesced. We are in mutual disagreement, and that nullifies the statement in my last post.[/QUOTE] So, you're just one huge contradiction then.

[quote name='Adahn']I think I just realized something. You don't know how much my thoughts, opinions, ideas, and feelings are open to change, do you? I have almost no opinion on anything, and really just argue for shits and giggles.[/quote]Bull, lol. If you had no real opinion on anything, you wouldn't have escalated that Christianity thread to the point that you did. If you didn't have a real opinion on anything, you wouldn't be starting all of these threads now, only a few days after that Christianity thread. If you didn't have any real opinions about anything, you wouldn't be bitter, lol. Are you saying you're just a mindless drone with no substantial thoughts in that pretty little head of yours? [QUOTE]I'm assuming that both people in the relationship must be happy.[/quote]You were never assuming that, lol. Any type of relationship that you didn't agree with was automatically wrong, and you never even gave consideration to the fact that maybe, just maybe, those people were happy. Don't pull that crap. [quote]If so, what do you think it is that allows two people to be happy together? If you want, you may draw from your own personal experiences or feelings.[/QUOTE]If I want? Oh, thank you for giving me permission. Anyway, like I and others have said this entire time, there is no way to quantify what exactly makes a relationship work, because there are no precise rules and guidelines, settings, etc, because it's different for everybody. In my previous relationships, we had absolutely nothing in common, we were diametrically opposed politically, and I didn't really even care about what was going on in the Middle East ("It's just land," I would say), and she was Jewish. Yet we had fun for a few months, enjoyed each other's company, but then the differences just became too apparent. We were just looking for different things in life, and were at different points in our life. Because we were different, though, that didn't mean our relationship was wrong; it was just not working. My current relationship, we're doing quite well, because our goals in life are very similar (Teaching), and our personalities click for the most part, as we have a rough patch here and there, like in every relationship. We're comfortable around each other, we can goof off, and we both spin a bit of innuendo here and there. We're cuddly, and we're smitten with each other. What makes a relationship work for me...is just someone I can be comfortable around, and there's no set criteria for that. This goes back to what James said earlier, actually. There isn't a minute where I go, "Okay, I'm comfortable with this person, but in five minutes, I'm going to flip out on them." There are no clear-cut definitions of what makes a relationship work (and there are certainly no accurate measures of "right" and "wrong"), and that's what many people here have been saying the entire time. If there were concrete relationship criteria, my ex and I would have never gotten together, and the fact that we did get together proves there is no concrete relationship criteria. [QUOTE]Oh, when I was talking about right and wrong, I was saying that I know when I'm doing something right or wrong, and nothing else. Do you not have the ability to judge your own actions as right or wrong? If you want an example of what seems wrong to me about other people, I will give you one.[/QUOTE]Oh...so this "right" and "wrong" thing is only applying to yourself now? Not any outside people or relationships? [QUOTE]People who are friendly towards each other in person, even very close friends, insult each other behind their backs.[/QUOTE]I guess when you talk about right and wrong, you actually are still talking about other people. So, it's wrong to ask Jordan what in the hell your problem is? It's wrong to ask him why you are the way you are, because I sure as hell wasn't going to get a straight answer out of you? [QUOTE]That bothers me more than anything.[/QUOTE]I don't see why it would. After all, you're not exactly the clearest person around, and Jordan's much more succinct. It was simply a matter of effectiveness. [quote]Oh, and if I don't repeat an argument or challenge your opinion, it means I agree with you.[/QUOTE]So, then, you agree with me (and Ben, and Boba Fett, for that matter) that Revelation hasn't happened yet? You agree that there's more cohesion in the Bible than you were preaching for 13 pages?

[quote name='Adahn']So, this is all just BS? I'm sorry, I assumed he knew what he was talking about. Silly me.[/quote] Physical action versus mental activity. Two different things, dude. The Adrenaline is dangerous physically, because you lose control over your body and with the enhanced strength, you're far more capable of doing damage. Mentally, however, the Adrenaline fine-tunes your thought processes, sharpens them, etc. Don't try to pull that crap, lol.