Brasil

Plus, retirement homes aren't all bad anyway. Without retirement homes, my grandpop wouldn't be doing as well as he is, and Bruce Campbell wouldn't have been able to fend off a mummy sucking the souls out of old folks' rears.

[quote name='DeathBug']I've got the innate feeling I'm about to be talked down to by Siren again.[/quote] You?re breaking my heart. If you don't want negative feedback, don't say stupid ****, simple as that. "Again" is absolutely right, DB, because rarely have I seen you make any shred of sense. Remember the No Child Left Behind? Yeah, so do I. [quote]Here's an idea: how about you spend your entire life around the military, and meeting the people who make it work, and then you tell me about their reasons, and what they can and can't do. Any perosn with the courage and discipline to join the US militrary doesn't need the military to make something of their life, because they've already got the ability to be something without it. It's a matter of character, and the way your assertions portray them is insulting.[/quote] And what does this matter, DeathBug? Our military is comprised of good individuals. Okay. But that doesn't mean that those in the Armed forces for educational or economic reasons aren't there for educational or economic reasons. And again...remember that the "sense of duty" can still (and has) been spun into the "gung-ho" even by the dutiful themselves. I give props to our military, DB. I do. I respect them. But I'm not about to springboard off of that to vehemently criticize a woman whose political viewpoint I'm diametrically opposed to. By the way, "they've already got the ability of character" is utterly trite and fairly naive. It more sounds like the recruitment commercials than any respectable view on things. [quote]And I wonder why this paragraph is even included here, as it adds nothing to our conversation.[/quote] Wasn?t it obvious? If she was right-wing, you wouldn?t have a problem with her at all. [quote]If it's not a point, don't write three paragraphs about it and then tell not to "attempt to refute it", especially when you're trying to make my point look invalid by disputing a single clause of it. I am not attacking this woman; I pointed out the truth of what she's doing. I am attacking her actions. She is using her son's death to give her autohority she otherwise wouldn't have. And this is not an act of desperation anymore, if it ever was. You don't get a press secretary, a web ring, a fund-rasining organization, and collabortaiton with Micheal Moore and MoveOn.Org as an act of desperation; you do it as an act of activism.[/quote] DeathBug, I doubt you weren?t attacking her when you basically implied (and just outright said above) she was a good-for-nothing political opportunist, exploiting her son?s death to further her own personal political agenda. I doubt you weren?t attacking her when you implied that she was a ?two-faced, manipulative, exploitive snake.? You?re not attacking her? Please. Dispense with the smokescreen, man. And do (did) you feel the same way about Terry Schiavo?s parents? After all, based on your evaluation criteria, they?re exploiting their daughter so they can further a political agenda. They used her death (for all intents and purposes, it was a death) to petition both Bushes. And yet, I can?t recall seeing anything from you that wasn?t critical of Michael Schiavo and remotely scathing directed towards Terry?s parents. Why is that? Why don?t you just admit what we all know here? The following screams what I?m getting at. [quote]Why isn't it? She's certainly making it an issue. I didn't lump her in with Moore; she did, by co-ordinating with him. Or maybe her press secretary did it; I can't be sure. Wow, it's almost like you're saying, because she lost her son, she's beyond all critisism. Gee, isn't that exactly what I just said she wanted to happen? Maybe the fact that she's only getting it because her son died? It's almost like she's milking his death for political attention... I'm not minimizing her actions; I'm responding to them. History will judge if she made any impact. I don't dislike this woman any more than I dislike all misguided activists. What I dislike is her calluos use of her son's sacrifice. Which is easy to do when she's a political activist. She was prior to her son's death, as well.[/quote] And you don?t see why you?re taking issue with this woman? Her being an activist has nothing to do with it. Your entire argument is politically charged. You don?t dislike her for what she is. You dislike her for what she isn?t. Also, you?ve described her actions as callous, but you?ve just sat here and accused her of being a political shark, that she doesn?t really care about her son, only that she can use it to further a political agenda. And you say she?s callous? Grow a heart.. And?if history will judge if she made any impact, why are you able to comment on anything? And again, bringing up historical context, if you take issue with one act of political activism purely on the grounds that one is making connections and networking to help further one?s cause?you?d have to condemn history itself, because that?s what political activism involves: building a voice. You find it on the right and left, so why do we see you only criticizing it when the left does it? By the way, are you about to tell me that you would absolutely refuse to make connections, network, etc., if you were fighting for a particular political issue? Seems hypocritical to denounce what this mother is doing when it?s very likely (almost a guarantee I?d think) that you?d do the same things, just from a different political standpoint. [quote]Yes, complete and utter misinformation that the entire world believed. As you'll recall, the debate prior to the war was not whether or not Iraq had WMD's, but whether or not they should be given more time to comply with UN regulations.[/quote] I suppose the speeches of Bush?s that harped on WMDs, the speeches from Rumsfield that harped on WMDs, the speeches from Cheney that harped on WMDs?weren?t really about WMDs? Iraq?s noncompliance was incidental, because the only way to prove Iraq was noncompliant because they had WMDs (i.e., something to hide) was to?provide proof they had WMDs. And to this day, the only three people in the world that haven?t fully acknowledged Iraq?s WMDs were largely non-existent are Bush, Rumsfield, and Cheney. I suppose my paragraph here wasn?t really about WMDs, either, was it? [quote]Conservative broadcasters refer to it because they know the liberal ones are, and they'll look foolish if they ignore it. If they didn't feel they needed to report it in some fashion, they wouldn't.[/quote] They?ll look foolish? That?s incredibly trite and naïve. They report the news for the ratings. If a story doesn?t bring in viewers, if an item won?t boost Nielsen numbers and the similar systems?you won?t see it on the news. They report the news so they don?t look foolish? Complete and utter horse****. Look at it this way. If they didn?t want to appear foolish?they wouldn?t cover half of the crap we see every hour. [quote]Yes, because clearly, you know everything about me, and my motivations, and therefore have no problems personally attacking me, because you're so damned smart. Wow, and pigeonholing me into a stereotype makes you look so smart. How relevent are personal attacks?[/quote] From what I?ve seen from you in the past? The prototypical Republican mouthpiece? DeathBug, I don?t even know what you?re trying to get at here, but what I?m noting about you isn?t some outlandish and bizarre radical assessment. I?m not just coming out of left field on this one. I pigeonholed you into a stereotype? You pigeonholed yourself into a stereotype. Ironically, your dependence on sarcasm in your post is one of the plagues of your reply?simply, because it just doesn?t work. You?re trying to use sarcasm to sound clever, but you?re not being very witty at all, and frankly?the sarcasm just sounds like a teenager being pissed off. By the way, I can be just as mean, just as sarcastic, just as offensive as you can be, DeathBug, if not more. Keep that in mind if you want to continue trading barbs here. [quote]But, I'll give it to you: I am pissed off. I'm pissed off from the total bull being spouted about the armed forces. To hear the new party line, you'd think the lot of the US military are a bunch of stupid kids who can't make cognitive decisions. And I'm completely sick of "We support the troops, but not the war". Oh, we think want you're doing is evil and it should fail, because that would show the Bush Nazi's...but we think you guys are okay. BS.[/quote] Who gives two ****s? You don?t like how things work? It?s the same type of vitriolic rhetoric coming from the right, yourself included, DeathBug. And how does your Ideology work, anyway? Because someone disagrees with the reasoning for stepping into a theatre of war, they should treat the troops like subhuman degenerates? Yes, I think that?s your fundamental point in a nutshell, isn?t it? Unless I?m horribly misinterpreting your point here?that Ideology makes no sense at all. I don?t know if you?re playing the pseudo-philosopher or whatever, but even then?from a philosophical standpoint, your point is absurd and unrealistic?and we?re talking about a field where something like Solipsism isn?t completely unheard of. [quote]Why should I care what you think, honestly? Every single time I disagree with you, you post from some supposed intellectual superiority and talk down to me and anyone else who disagrees with you. I'm not so shallow that I need the acceptance of others to know when I'm right.[/QUOTE] Why should you care what anyone thinks? You?re obviously so incredibly right here in labeling a grief-stricken, angry mother like she was some liberal nutcase you?d find distributing Truth Pamphlets in college towns in middle New York that you couldn?t possibly be utterly mistaken?or at least operating from such a skewed Ideological perspective as to view a situation in the extremes?couldn?t you? Again, I can be just as mean, just as sarcastic, just as offensive as you can be, DeathBug, if not more. Come on, man. Just get over yourself. Lol. I?ve talked down to you in the past because in the past, you were pulling absolute bull****, like in that No Child Left Behind thread. In this thread, it?s no different; your posts are so incredibly transparent that anyone can see what your true modus operatum is. Face it, man. You?re just an angry teenager who?s become a mindless mouthpiece for your own political party. Go ahead and laugh at me. Shrug me off. I don?t care. Your negative reactions only further confirm what I?ve said here. Call me arrogant. Consider yourself right. Who gives a crap. Fact of the matter is, you don?t sound like anyone with an actual grasp on the issues here. You just sound like some mouthy teenage Republican.

[QUOTE=Bloodseeker]My question is why the hell did the news people need to go and make a big deal out of it? If they hadn't brought it up, I never would have known, and there's a good chance that it never would have [u][b]reached the middle east[/b][/u] and made things even more tense than they already were. Sometimes the stupidity of our news media amazes me...[/QUOTE] You may want to check a world map there, fella. Specifically, one of South America/Central America. ^_^;;

You know...I don't know which is more insanely disturbing? Jerry Falwell saying we need to hunt down the terrorists in the name of God, or Pat Robertson playing Pretend Overt CIA Agents.

DeathBug, you've gotta be kidding me, coming in here and spouting this garbage. [quote name='DeathBug']If you honestly believe that, you're an idiot.[/quote] Yes, and there are those who join the military out of a sense of duty. But there are large numbers of soldiers, medics, mechanics, etc., who are merely taking advantage of an opportunity offered to them by the US Military so they can afford to attend higher education when their military service is up. So calling Ilium an "idiot" for believing that is out of line, DB. And even the "sense of duty" can be spun into "gung-ho" by the dutiful themselves, so let's keep that in mind. [quote]The basic assumption you've got here is either people in the military are A) Losers who couldn't get an education or future for themselves on their own or B) Violent psychopaths. God forbid someone join because they believe in what they're doing. That never happens, does it? Maybe you should actually get some proof before you throw wild statistics about.[/quote] And what basic assumption are you operating under, DeathBug? Something tells me the rest of your post here will shed some light on that. [quote]Left-wing or right-wing, people who shiled themselves with the bodies of their dead relatives deserve critisism.[/quote] Shielding themselves with the bodies of their dead relatives? I wonder why "right-wing" is even included here, DB. For the purposes of this topic...if someone is speaking out against the President, or the war, they're not "right-wing." So even including "or right-wing" there sounds suspiciously like an entirely lame cop-out. This isn't a full-blown point, so don't quote it and attempt to refute it. It's merely an incidental. In something like Terry Shiavo, however, if Conservatives use Terry as a poster child (like they did) to push a political agenda, they're not using dead relatives as anything. Even Terry's parents didn't have a political agenda in mind when they were fighting to keep her on the feeding tube. They petitioned Jeb Bush, President Bush, etc., but was that political activism in the sense we're discussing here? I don't think so, really. They were desperate. And that leads me into my next point. [quote]Don't be stupid; she already was an activist, and she's clearly using her son as a tool to further her activism. Now she's approaching from a standpoint of rightuos indignation, as though her son was an empty-minded idiot who didn't have any say in the matter.[/quote] Strong words without a shred of proof, DB. And you know, it actually sickens me to read this rubbish? You're attacking this woman--for all intents and purposes you're accusing her of being a two-faced, manipulative, exploitive snake--simply because in the grief of losing a son...in [b][i]desperation[/i][/b]...she's making a political statement. Now, generally, I don't agree with most political activism--most [i]extreme[/i] political activism--but in this case? You have a woman who lost her son in war, and is upset enough to want to do something about why she lost her son. Whether or not you agree with her stance on things--or her political viewpoint--is not the issue here. "Activist" or not, to seemingly lump her in with the likes of Michael Moore is absurdly asinine, because Michael Moore [i]has no preceden[/i]t for the crap he pulls on a regular basis. He didn't get exploited by any big government. He's not losing money at the pump. He's not been shot by Charlton Heston. Bush didn't beat him up and steal his lunch money. His children (if he has any) haven't joined the Armed Services and become casualties of war. At least this woman [i]has a reason[/i] for doing what she's doing. And she's only tripled her efforts after she lost her son. How dare you criticize her for that. For that matter, so what if she's trying to put pressure on Bush? So what if she's trying to get all the media attention she can? What is so wrong with that? You're knowledgeable about history, DB. You know about the 1960s. Vietnam, Flower Power, Born on the Fourth of July. Political activism has always largely been driven by personal/life experiences. You want to minimize this woman's actions...you're going to have to minimize history, man, right and left. And you know...I sincerely doubt you'd feel the same way about this type of issue if it were a Republican "exploiting" Terry Shiavo's media circus to propel their own political agenda. I'd like to think you'd hold the same types of criticisms...but there's a part of me that knows you'd be standing right there next to that Republican. So...why not just tell us exactly why you dislike this woman so much? I admit, I find this entire circus silly, as I do all media circuses, but at least I'm not showing my claws like you are here. [quote]And the proof that this was the case is...? You can't just say it and automatically make it true.[/quote] What was true? I see a few things in Ilium's paragraph, yet no specificity coming from you in your two sentence reply. If we're talking motivations of the son, he re-enlisted, volunteered. But does that invalidate his mother's crusade? Of course not. If we're talking about the Iraq war itself? I support stabilizing nigh-Fascist regimes, and I do believe if we clear out Extremism in the Middle East, things will start looking up. But what I'm not about to do is blindly support the Iraq war, because we all know that the reasons for going to war in the first place were complete and utter misinformation. [quote]So...your theory is that a media outlet that's ideolgically opposed to her is going to give her free air time to further her views if they thought they didn't have to? Wow, that's almost as smart as your "All soldiers are poor psychos" argument. And even that brilliant logic is working under the assumption that "right wing" media is the only one giving her air-time, when it's clearly not. If only Fox News covered this story, you think anyone would care?[/quote] Fox News covers the story because it gives their entertainer-cum-newscasters ratings (and yet another chance for that political soapbox, to boot). And let's face it. Both sides are using this woman as a political springboard. Fox News covering the story doesn't mean they want to spread [i]her[/i] message. It means they want to spread [i]their[/i] message. Check out No-Spin Zone and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's funny how you criticize Ilium's post for being mindless and so forth, because I'm having difficulty in discerning any real, relevant material in your reply that isn't simply a Republican teenager being pissed off. [quote]Well, we're all glad to know that someone of your obvious intellect is finding time to define hummanity for us. If you're going to continue to spout such nonsense, you're right to not tie intelligence into hummanity.[/QUOTE] Is that rubbish really necessary at all? Seriously, DB. The sarcasm, the trite, childish insults in your posts...prove to me that you're above all of that.

For naughty Eles on the opposing team (and for that matter, any Necros and Mesmers), that's where our own Hexers come in, namely Necros and Mesmers. (Isn't interesting how the only real threat to Necros and Mesmers are other Necros and Mesmers? ^_^) Mesmers have straight-up Interrupts in the Domination magic line. Power Spike, Power Leak, Power Drain, Power Block. Power Block would be particularly devastating, although I'd prefer our Interrupt Mesmer save it for Monks casting healing spells. P.Block interrupts the current spell being cast, and also disables all spells of that type for X amount of seconds. So with Power Block, you hit a Monk casting Word of Healing and Word of Healing is stopped cold, and all of that Monk's Healing spells are disabled. Really devastating spell. It's an Elite spell, though. That's the only catch. But for an Interruption-focused Mesmer, bringing Power Power Block as the skill set's Elite spell really a no-brainer. It's an Interrupt with Shutdown qualities. Very desirable. Incidentally, another two Anti-Monk skills are Mark of Subversion from Necro Blood, and Shame in Mesmer Domination. Mark of Subversion and Shame function in similar manners, so it's best to alternate them on one target (as one wears off, slap on the other Hex), or use them individually on two Monks. MoS steals health when the target tries to cast a spell on an ally. Shame steals energy. MoS is pretty insane at higher levels. I've had targets kill themselves from trying to cast through it. The health steal can get pretty nasty, 92 health at 12 Blood magic and a rune boost of +3. Shame's energy steal is up around 15 or so at 11 Domination magic. Good stuff for Mesmers and Necros who can multi-target in battle. But to shut down Eles and Necros, a combination of Guilt and Backfire from Mesmer will make them think twice about doing anything. I think I explained Guilt earlier, and anyone who plays Guild Wars knows what Backfire does, lol. From Necro, Malaise (Curses) is a nice Anti-Caster Hex. For X amount of seconds, target foe suffers energy degen of 2, and you suffer health degen of 2. It ends if your target hits 0 energy, and with a Primary Ele's Energy Storage, a degen of 2 doesn't seem like much, but if they're trying to cast through something like Guilt, the energy degen is going on, in addition to Guilt stealing energy, and then whatever other energy denial we can work in. So...yeah. Methinks Eles wouldn't be a problem anyway if our Mesmers and Necros know how to work the field. Also, I've recently begun using Shatter Hex with Jezebel (my PvP Insta-20 char), and it's quite potent. It rivals Backfire in terms of damage at any Domination magic level, and its recharge time is such that any Hex cast on any of our team would only have a few seconds to have any effect at all. You use Shatter Hex on a Warrior who just got afflicted with Empathy, and by the time another Hex is put on any of your team, Shatter Hex's 10-second recharge is half-way done, [i]especially[/i] if the Hexes are being cast by anyone other than Mesmers not using Fast Casting. Another potent Mesmer Anti-Caster skill is one that I'm not sure too many people are aware of: Arcane Conundrum. It doubles the cast time of target foe for about 15 seconds at high levels of Illusion magic, which is why Ranger/Mesmers are so effective, especially Illusion magic Ranger/Mesmers. With Arcane Conundrum active, Ranger interrupts that have really nasty side effects (like Concussion Shot's Dazed condition) are scary. Rangers and Mesmers have the best straight-up Interrupts in the game, and any combination of those two professions' abilities will be devastating when played well. Before I zip out to mow the lawn, another Mesmer Illusion magic Hex deserves mention: Fevered Dreams. Fevered Dreams is incredibly useful for Condition infliction, like the Ranger Apply Poison, Ele Blind skills, etc. [quote]Fevered Dreams [Illusion Magic] (10,2,10) Hex: For 16 seconds, whenever target foe suffers from a new condition, all nearby foes suffer from that condition as well. This is an elite skill.[Boss: Plexus Shadowhook (Abaddon's Mouth)][/quote] I think the description shows how effective it can be. Only thing is, another Elite skills, so it'll come down to a properly constructed team build. Also, it's an Elite skill from later in the game, so it may be more effective for the time-being (if any of our members here want to use it in PvP, GvG, etc), to unlock it through the Faction system. Regarding Tombs and HoH, sort of. It's like a huge, wide-open arena with lots of destroyed buildings. It's similar to a battle royale with four teams. There are stationary obelisks scattered around, which your team can utilize by bringing your flag there. They're like those obelisks in Ruins of Surmia. "As long as I control this tower, it will strike lightning at yadda yadda yadda." And actually, since Tombs and HoH don't affect ratings and all...I'd be more inclined to practice there, then bring it into GvG. There are no penalties for losses in Tombs and HoH, I believe, other than just having to start over in the tourney itself. And even better, the team size is 8 in Tombs (and HoH, pretty sure), so having a guild team isn't a problem. From Tombs, you enter HoH, and both PvE and PvP alike can access Tombs, so it's all good. I'd recommend a PvP-only player, though. It is a bit easier with max armor and such.

Epidemic spreads all conditions from one foe to other foes near or adjacent to him. It spreads the conditions themselves and their remaining durations. So Epidemic would only be spreading Blind for up to 3 seconds each time. If you wanted to keep the group blinded all the time, you'd need to keep re-casting Epidemic. What I believe Alec could do is use his Lightning Wand, with Glimmering Mark activated, and simply Tab through his targets, hitting the Warriors once each. Tabbing and then Shift-Tabbing would work really well there, since you'd only be switching around a few targets. But even then, there are some Ranger skills that can keep a target Blinded for upwards of 15 seconds. Throw Dirt, Dust Trap, etc. Throw Dirt has a 45 or 60-second recharge time, so that's used sparingly. But using a combination of Lightning Reflexes-->Dust Trap is incredibly potent, because while setting up most Traps, the Ranger is easily interrupted. Lightning Reflexes is a 75% change to evade melee and ranged attacks. In a solid couple of hours when using that tactic with Mila, I've run into groups of PvE (and I mean right into the thick of things), hit L.R., then laid Barbed Trap. Only got interrupted once in hours of doing it. What I really like about that combo is that you've effectively Blinded your opponents when you use L.R., because they won't be able to hit [i]you[/i] at all. Then you lay Dust Trap down and it'll spring instantly, since there are enemies right there. So in all of 9 seconds, you've just had hit your foes with an AoE Blind status that's going to last for a solid 15 seconds. Activate a Whirling Defense on your Ranger (deflects arrows at adjacent foes), maybe Ignite Arrow, and your Ranger just became almost untouchable--and can do pretty much anything to the enemies he (or she) wants. Cripple and Bleed with Barbed Trap; after Dust Trap wears off, either set it again or hit them with Throw Dirt; re-activate Whirling Defense when necessary. Devastating stuff. With the constant Blind you can keep inflicting, that Ranger can stay there and kill (at least horribly maim) the enemy from within. So...given all those options, casting a simple team enchant like Aegis that only gives 75% evade/block enhancements isn't a great idea. Enchants can be removed (Well of the Profane, for example), shattered, drained, etc. The Enchant removal in the game still has long recharge times, so it's not totally effective, but all the other team needs is one Well of the Profane to drop and then Aegis + Price of Failure is screwed. Price of Failure is a terrific Hex, though, and so is its Mesmer counterpart, Spirit of Failure. But they only truly shine when your target can't connect a swing at all. The chain-Blinding just about guarantees that. Aegis doesn't. True, Condition Removal in-game is pretty good, but if you've got a team set-up like the following: Ranger with L.R., Dust Trap, Throw Dirt, Whirling Defense, Barbed Trap. Necro with Price of Failure (and whatever other nasty little skills they bring along). Mesmer with Spirit of Failure and Epidemic (and whatever other nasty little skills they bring along). Ele with Glimmering Mark and a fast Lightning Wand. ...Condition Removal isn't [i]that good[/i]. And Hall of Heroes is like GvG on steroids. It flippin rules.

I tend to echo what Sara said. Her "re-sample" of If I Were A Rich Man is absolutely atrocious. I'm not one to criticize pop music too much, but I think it's dreadful when one of them remake a classic song, whether it's so-called "mainstream" music or a showtune. Because quite frankly, if you compared the two songs side-by-side, the original sung by Topol in the film version of Fiddler, and Gwen's piratized version (pun intended), there's no question which is the better rendition. Topol just obliterates her. She's taken what is quite possibly one of the greatest musical numbers in theatre history that explored the fears and desires of a poor milkman in Russia at the turn of the 20th century...and turned it into a stupid pirate ship dance routine. That right there just about says it all, I think. Regarding her "Hollaback Girl" song? I think a quote from This Is Spinal Tap puts it best: [center]"This tasteless cover is a good indication of the lack of musical invention within. The musical growth of this band cannot even be charted. They are treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry." [/center] I mean...let's face it. "Banana" repeated over and over again? Not only is it just mind-numbingly trite and stupid, without any point at all...but if VH1 is still around in 20 years, Hollaback Girl will be on the 20 Most Awesomely Bad Songs, I guarantee it. Using a marching band in your song: good idea. Forgetting about the marching band in your song: bad idea. Let's not forget the dreadful editing in Hollaback Girl. lol. The last two shots of Gwen with her arms up? The arms are in entirely different positions between the long shot and the medium/close-up. The most recent song I've heard from Gwen sounds much more classical (better), and her look, as well. She's gorgeous regardless, but the classical look suits her so much better than Ghetto Thugged.

[quote name='Otaku America][color=blue][/color][color=blue']Sorry, my thoughts weren?t fully expressed nor explained clearly back then so I?ll just disregard this post.[/color][/quote] Or you could actually try to refute my post, instead of just dodging the point, OA. Because as it stands now, you just look like you're trying to dodge the point--perhaps because you said something so horribly wrong from a contextual standpoint, yet you've been acting like some Biblical scholar here, and some random internet stranger pulled excerpts from the actual Bible itself and proved you wrong. Counter the point or concede that you were wrong, and not just that your posts "weren't fully expressed nor explained clearly." [quote][color=blue]God?s plan from the beginning was to make Man & Woman live eternally in the gardens without the humans eating the forbidden fruit. In the KJV/NKJV it states God does not condemn sodomites but sodomites who engage in homosexual acts. Thus, it?s a sin.[/color][/quote] And you trust the Bible's account why? You're using a derivative of a Strawman's Argument here. I believe that's the phrase. "It's bad because it is." Try again. So far, you've only been able to quote the Bible to engage in the debate here. You've not used any other reasoning other than "The Bible says it." You're still clinging to a flimsy argument, because the Bible itself is not infallible--a point that you missed completely in the next bit. [quote][color=blue]In John 14:6 ?Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.?[/color][/quote] And this relates to my point how? Okay, so you can quote the Bible. Big whoop. That doesn't address my question of how do you really know what's going on religiously? What if your entire belief structure isn't actually based on any fundamental guiding light? What if God isn't really the God you think he is? And "The Bible says so" is not a valid response. [quote][color=blue]There are over 40 Holy Bible translations, explain which version that quote came from.[/color][/quote] This made me laugh. Do you honestly believe you can play this card? Show you which version it came from? As if we checked a different translation, the fundamental idea would change so dramatically that there'd be no consistency? Come on. Check out [url]www.bible.com[/url].

Yeah, that Monk sucked. I think he wanted to believe casting Mending on us would be enough. Yeah, I'm sure a constant +4 health regen is really going to help. :rolleyes: He healed maybe once or twice and that was it. Any Monk worth their Divine Favor should know that the loss of a pip of energy regen just isn't worth it--and especially if you've got Mending casted multiple times across the party. What a twerp. "When did u see me use a bow?" Yeah, like he wasn't using one. [center][b]***EDIT***[/b] [/center] [quote name='Chaos']The problem was the Enchantments, but Alex thinks he might have a solution for that.[/quote] I believe I do. My initial idea was a Necro using Death Magic, but one of the snags would have been cast times. My first choice, Well of the Profane, has a 3-second cast time, which even though it may not be a problem given the general close quarters PvP/GvG combat, may prove problematic. But Well of Profane is so useful for Enchant stripping/suppression that I wanted to figure out a way to utilize it. Then it hit me. Mesmer Fast Casting. Here's the "first draft" of the build I'm working on: [quote]The Edge - Guild Wars Utility [url="http://www.sovereignlegion.com/downloads/theedge.htm"]http://www.sovereignlegion.com/downloads/theedge.htm[/url] Class: Mesmer / Necromancer Attributes: (cost) '+' indicates Rune attributes Fast Casting: 10+2 (61) Inspiration Magic: 11+3 (77) Death Magic: 10 (61) Total attribute points used: 199/200 Skills: [Attribute] (Energy, Cast Time, Recharge TIme) 1) Soul Feast [Death Magic] (10,1,0) Spell: Exploit nearest corpse to steal 203 health.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric) Quest: Fallen Soldiers] 2) Putrid Explosion [Death Magic] (10,1,0) Spell: The corpse nearest your target explodes, sending out a shockwave that deals 88 damage to each nearby creature.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric) Quest: Oberan's Rage] 3) Well of the Profane [Death Magic] (25,3,10) Spell: Exploit nearest corpse to create a well of the profane at its location. For 16 seconds, foes in that area are stripped of all enchantments and cannot be the target of further enchantments. (50% failure chance with Death Magic 4 or less.)[Droknar's Forge (Bartoch) Quest: The Misplaced Sword (Heroes Audience)] 4) Necrotic Traversal [Death Magic] (5,1,0) Spell: Exploit a random corpse, you teleport to that corpse's location and all nearby foes become poisoned for 15 seconds.[Lion's Arch (Firstwatch Sergio) Quest: Renegade Necromancer] 5) Deathly Swarm [Death Magic] (10,3,3) Spell: Deathly Swarm flies out slowly and strikes for 58 cold damage (before armor) on up to three targets.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran) Quest: Necromancer Test, The Stolen Artifact] 6) Rotting Flesh [Death Magic] (15,3,3) Hex: Target fleshy creature becomes diseased for 20 seconds and slowly loses health.[Lion's Arch (Firstwatch Sergio) Quest: Hungry Devourer (Beacons Perch)] 7) Ether Feast [Inspiration Magic] (5,2,8) Spell: Target foe loses 5 energy. You are healed 27 for each point of energy lost.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran) Quest: Mesmer Test, Mesmerizing the Enemy (Sardelac Sanitarium)] 8) Energy Drain [Inspiration Magic] (5,1,20) Spell: Steal 20 energy from target foe. This is an elite skill.[Boss: Gambol Headrainer (Ice Floe), Snik Hungrymind (Spearhead Peak)] [/quote] There are a few things there I can change/swap. Necrotic Traversal for one. As long as we have a Mesmer with Epidemic, we can inflict some major condition damage if this Necro calls the target for Rotting Flesh. There's another Inspiration magic Elite skill called Mantra of Recall, and it's pretty nice. You cast it, and for 20 seconds, you don't get anything. After 20 seconds are up, with the level of Insp. magic on this build, you gain 34 energy. So what I may (and probably will) do is swap out Necrotic Traversal for Energy Tap, which'll net about 14 energy. Then plug in Mantra of Recall for Energy Drain. MoR is an enchantment, so we'd need to be careful about Enchant removal. Of course, that's where our own Mesmers come in, with Guilt (Domination magic) I think it is. It's an offensive spell suppression hex. And so far in the game, the only characters with Enchant removals are Necros and Mesmers, so it works out well. Necros and Mesmers are targets that kind of stand out. ~_^ What Guilt does is for X amount of seconds, whenever the target casts an offensive spell, that spell fails and you steal X amount of energy from that foe, so the benefit is two-fold, really. In addition to shutting down an enemy caster, the hexer is gaining energy (and with a reasonably high Domination magic, you gain gain upwards of 15 energy). And another thing that'll make this easier on the energy consumption is a Ranger using Energizing Wind. Energy cost reduction by 15, which is very handy for anything. [center][b]***EDIT 2*** 6:45 am Saturday [/b][/center] I tweaked that build a bit. And it works. Oh.......it [i][b]works[/b][/i]. I ventured into Hall of Heroes earlier (first time ever). One of the Korean teams didn't know what hit them. As soon as I saw xp and Faction points pop up, I hit Well of the Profane. The entire Korean team fell within seconds. Corpse. Fast Casting into Well of the Profane. Victory. I'll post the revised build in a bit, once I set it up in The Edge. But we have our Enchanter F--k.

In commemoration of Neil (Chaos) finally getting a new video card, and finally allowing us to be able to bring him into a guild battle without fear he'll lag-out...we'd like to have a guild battle tonight (August 17th). Not sure what time, but perhaps in...3 hours from now. Time now is 8:40 pm. Let's do this, yo!

[quote name='Otaku America']I'm not wrong as I'm about to prove it. [/quote] "Prove" it by blatantly misinterpreting a literary text, okay. I've done some spin-doctoring in my day...but at least my spin-doctoring had a basis in the text. [quote]The Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil was in the garden to test Adam & Eve. This was God's test to see his plan for creation. The serpent tempted them and thus, everything that is sin, what we suffer to this very day, deformity, sickness, murder, etc, etc. Thus mortality was born, Adam & Eve were created Immortal before they ate from the Tree with the Knowledge of good & evil. If this would have never happen which I shouldn't be saying, there would be no homosexuality, everything would be perfect. The point for Adam & Eve was to be fruitful & multiply. Since mortality is cursed upon us some of our genetic codes were simply altered. That one fruit made them ask questions they shouldn't have, "Why am I naked?" We only know the beginning of mankind but we do not know anything about the angels in heaven or what happened there or even why there was a choice for Evil in the first place.[/quote] So you're saying the punishment for Adam and Eve's transgressions in the Garden of Eden are genetic deformities, sickness, murder, death? The book of Genesis states otherwise: [quote name='Bible.com][b]Unto the woman[/b] he said, I will greatly [b]multiply thy sorrow and thy conception[/b]; [b]in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee[/b]. 17 [b]And unto Adam[/b] he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: [b]cursed is the ground for thy sake[/b]; [b]in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life[/b]; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 [b]In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread[/b'], till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.[/quote] OA, it's stated explicitly in Genesis what the punishment was, and there's no confusion about it. I've bolded the exact lines. There are no genetic disorders from GoE. I'll help you out by "translating" the bolded portions. Eve is punished by having painful childbirth. Adam is punished by being forced to do strenuous labor for the rest of his life, until the day he dies. You may argue that Eve's painful childbirth is a "genetic disorder," but that's not arguing your original "point," that all disorders today are by-products of the story of GoE. And by the way, as of today, there has still been no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. If homosexuality were genetic, entire family trees would have more homosexual branches. So attempting to establish homosexuality as a "genetic disorder" is a dumb idea to begin with, and trying to link it as a punishment for Eve plucking an apple...is even a dumber idea. Also, nowhere in the GoE is there any mention made of homosexuality as a punishment, so nice try in playing the spin doctor--but there's no spin possible here. There isn't any gray area in terms of the contextual content of GoE. Now, regarding [i]actual[/i] genetic disorders, trisomy, monosomy, Down Syndrome, Tourette's Syndrome...you're not going to find anything of that nature in GoE, because genetic disorders weren't a punishment for Adam and Eve's transgressions, which is obvious from just reading Genesis. [quote]You misunderstood what I said. When a gay couple gets together what else can you have besides having sinful pleasures for one another? [/quote] It's called pure love, and you should talk to a few gay couples, by the way. Sage is entirely correct here. Fundamentally, a gay relationship is no different than a straight relationship. Gay partners desire happiness, security, affection--the very same things a straight partner wants. [quote]When a child is born into this world do you believe God would like this child to view homosexuality as being one with nature? I don't think so. He could have created Adam & Adolf if he wanted homosexuality in this world. If you believe in science that's even worse because there is no explanation for homosexuality.[/quote] Maybe God isn't as big of a dick as you (want to) think he is. Maybe he actually loves them Queer Eye for the Straight Guy fems! You know, what if the entire Bible (including GoE) wasn't really what God intended anyway? I mean...what if God actually loves the Rainbow Coalition? Maybe he doesn't wear robes all the time, instead decked out in the latest high fashion and rhine-studded Versace leather vests? You say that God doesn't want homosexuals...but what basis is there for your assessment? An ancient literary text written by humans and "inspired" by God? Yeah. What if the actual God is a 3-foot tall, hairy, malformed bisexual leather slave Gnome? What if your entire upbringing and your vision of God is actually incorrect? What if what you think God wants is actually just the agenda of a handful of long-dead humans? [quote]That's why I stated that we face deformities & the like. Life was created in the form of Adam & Eve so it's the only natural flow on how this civilization should be.[/quote] I refer you to where I [i]quoted[/i] the Book of Genesis and used [i]the Bible itself[/i] to prove you [i]wrong[/i]. [quote]I thought my neighbor was gay. He totally fit the gay profile since he was born but when he was pressured in High School he just totally switched. An alter-ego just formed right in front of me. I can't even picture a child at the age of 5 to act homosexual.[/quote] Irrelevant tangents are fun! [quote]Homosexuals don't seem to cause any crime like heterosexuals[/quote] Let me guess why. Because all of them black ghetto, doo-rag peeps be killin theys homeys in da hood, and the gays simply don't have the time to do some killin because they're too busy having an Eye for the Straight Guys' fashion sense or lack thereof? Shi'foo, your viewpoint is faaaaaaabulouuuuuussss!!! [quote]Simply because it doesn't look right.[/quote] So...if something doesn't "look right," we can go ahead and destroy it, or attack it, and so on? Cool. I think George W. Bush doesn't look right. He looks like a frigging monkey in a suit. I'm going to go attack him. And you know, Jerry Falwell looks incredibly wrong, so he's next on my hit list. And...Karl Rove looks like a penis with a little hat on, so I'll pop him third. Care to join me, since those three clearly don't "look right"? [quote]The simple fact is, women were created for men. If men were created for men, then you'd have dinosaurs.[/QUOTE] Simple fact...yeah, most of religious doctrine is pretty damn simple. But Velociraptors would be animals in bed, though! It'd be good, hard, rough sex. Yum! Who doesn't like some heavy scratching? I know I'm kinky! Who's with me?!? We'll get some dinosaur lovin! And dino tongues are probably insanely long and powerful, ladies! And plus, what do dinosaurs have to do with anything here? [quote name='OA][color=Navy']I'd literally tear you apart in debates in real life in front of large audiences.[/color][/quote] Learn what "literally" actually means before using it in a sentence. You're trying to sound superior...but you're making a huge semantical mistake. [quote name='OA][color=Navy']But as a religous person, God created Adam & Eve not Adam & Eva.[/color][/quote] If you're going to use childish, sophomoric, sing-songy insults, at least get it right: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and [i]Steve[/i]." I don't know which is more offensive. Your attitude or your literary incompetence. Oh, and by the way...Adam's rib. Not his kidney. Or maybe you have a theory Eve was actually born out of his spleen?

Christopher Walken. How he wasn't anyone's answer is beyond me. He's fricking Christopher Walken! You name it, he's probably been in it as something. Walken can do anything and it'll be awesome, cause he's frigging Christopher Walken. ^_^ Who else...and pretty much anything with Christopher Guest's name on the billing. He's the guy behind Best In Show, Waiting For Guffman, A Mighty Wind, and one of the major creative forces in This Is Spinal Tap. I see a new Christopher Guest movie coming out, I'm going to make sure my *** is in that movie seat.

Break is right about that whole ancestoral intelligence thing. They had none--or at the very least...very little. Their levels of comprehension are the precise reasons we have things like Epic of Gilgamesh, the Odyssey, the Bible, etc. They're all mythologies in some form or another. [quote=Xander]The problem with this idea is that the kinds of things reported as miracles in the Bible are still things that would be considered miracles today. They were not natural pheonomena. People can't walk on water (unless it's frozen water lol) People can't turn water to wine. People can't be suddenly cured of years of blindness by having mud and spit put on their eyes. Pillars of fire do not come out of the sky and lead people around the desert. Seas do not instantaneously part to allow people to walk through them on dry land. People do not rise from the dead. That is why these things are called miracles. Because a miracle is a violation of the natural laws, not a supernatural explanation for a scientific fact. Unless you think any of the things above are explainable by science, then the idea that Christianity is a belief system designed to explain natural phenomena is ludicrous. The question is whether or not the miracles occured.[/quote] Xander, you're kind of missing the point. Yes, the things you listed above are impossible from a scientific standpoint. Yes, they rarely can be explained by science. But that doesn't mean the recordings of those events weren't seriously exaggerated or mistaken (whether intentionally or unintentionally). Did [i]something[/i] happen? Probably. Did it happen exactly as it was written (recorded) in the Bible (i.e., was it really a miracle)? Probably not. While Killer7 and Ilium may not be getting their point across as tactifully as some would like, their point is a valid one. The literary basis for Christianity is the same literary basis for Eastern religions. It's the same as the flood of the world in Gilgamesh. They're myths. And incidental point: I read Xander's "tree" post a few pages back. I don't think I need to point out the importance of the distinctions between physics and metaphysics, which make the "tree exists whether or not X" largely irrelevant to a discussion pertaining to religion.

Ryan reminds me of why so many people look up to Peter Jennings. He was a pillar of strength for a whole lot of viewers on 9/11 and the days following. When people would turn on the news (like we [i]all[/i] did, regardless of what we say now) and see him still there...it's a very unifying thing. There was someone who was staying with you in a time of extreme agony and distress. He was the Mr. Rogers of 9/11. And that truly is something just as deserving of recognition as a soldier on the front line, or the firemen who gave their lives on 9/11. Sometimes, if you provide a voice, an image, a kind face...it can have the same kind of effect as courage on the battlefield. Peter Jennings showed his courage in a newsroom.

[QUOTE=Mitch]Haha, pointless blathering on OB, how I've missed this. I love messing with people. All I've got to say to the gamut of posts against me is this: you're taking me too seriously.[/QUOTE] I second what Tony said. Drop the act, dude. It's extinct. In fact, it was extinct a long time ago. You're the only one who doesn't want to realize it.

[quote name='Mitch']As I said, I have nothing against the guy, and I'll certainly read up on his life. I'm just tired of people only caring when celebrities die, or well-known people die.[/quote] Your first mistake is treating all "celebrities" alike. Sara mentioned Mr. Rogers in this thread, and I think Mr. Rogers is a pretty good example of a so-called "celebrity" who shouldn't be treated in the manner one would treat any of the random Britney Spears clones. It's the same thing with Peter Jennings. Jennings was a guy who was out there doing things. He wasn't just a news anchor. But you're immediately lumping him in with those who truly are mindless performing monkeys. [quote]Everyone's led a life that's moving in some way or another. I'm stoic. This is how I am. Deal with it. And also, to sound like a complete parrot, I don't see what there's to mourn. I'm just glad he lived. I'm glad you're living. I'm glad I'm living. I'm glad anyone or anything is living. I'm not sad something died.[/QUOTE] Stoic? I'm sure that's the word I'd use, too. I'm not trying to get on your case here, but...come on, man. Who are you trying to fool here? lol. You make comments like "watch 4 hours of TV a day"? Is this really the kinds of things a "stoic" would say? Fact of the matter is, you wouldn't have had to watch TV 4 hours a day to get to know Peter Jennings, or even just to know who he was. World News Tonight. Twice. That's two hours in one week. That's it. And yet in order to know who he is...you think someone must be a slave to the TV? Yeah...I don't think you're really "stoic." You want to call yourself that, fine, but a stoic by definition doesn't have that tinge of anti-society we see coming from you.

[quote name='Mitch']What I might say is hard, but this is who I am.[/quote] Mitch, I think it's something other than "just who you are." Because quite frankly, I don't see how anyone can minimize the kind of life Jennings lived, or minimize people's sorrow over his passing, if they actually knew anything about the guy or weren't so concerned with seeming unfeeling because they believed it to be somehow better than actually showing emotion every once in a while. Read up on Jennings' life, Mitch. If that doesn't move you the slightest bit...you're closing yourself off out of misguided stupidity. No offense.

[QUOTE=Break]America progressed along with other nations, along with Britain, mainly. America was our colony and therefore it started from where we were in our progression, it did not progress from scratch. I don't think America has more freedoms than Germany or Holland; or even Britain, for that matter. I think that there is a lot of negative freedom over there, as in any country. True freedom is a matter that isn't really considered, to be honest: in any democracy, when would you think we are actually "free"? Because we are never free, the only time we are free is when we vote for the candidate we want in elections. That is our one day of freedom. As for the implications of what I said before, I apologise, I did not mean for them to have that effect. Of course, Iran is much more oppressive than America.[/QUOTE] No apologies necessary. I figured you didn't mean for it to sound that way. But one of my main points throughout this thread is that while America isn't perfect...it's still doing quite well and is a definite world leader when it comes to civil rights. Surely America has stumbled along the way, but the degree and severity (and amount of time) at which we've stumbled is a drop in the bucket compared to places like Iran and the former Taliban Regime, etc. And honestly, I think Americans have much more freedoms than just a voting booth. We have freedom of speech--and that right is definitely still intact...just look at Michael Moore. People are free to practice their own religion because of religious freedom. We can dress largely however we want to. We can date whomever we want to. Women can go out in public by themselves. Maybe it's just me, but all of that is music to my ears. And what makes it even sweeter is that it's true with a few rare exceptions now and again.

[quote name='Break]Ha! Which Americans, the Native ones whom the American government exacted genocide on for four hundred years? Or the Afro-Americans who were slaves for hundreds of years before their life 'got better'? Or those Muslims who can now be arrested for pretty much nothing and detained in Guantanamo Bay? Oh, yes, [i]those[/i'] freedoms![/quote] I'd be one of the first to voice concern over the Patriot Act. I'd be one of the first to say inhumane treatment at Guantanamo is wrong. Slavery isn't a good thing, nor is subjugation/suppression of different people. But to point to those and imply that America should still be considered similar to Iran--or at least no better than Iran? Break, you're smarter than that. And even in light of those issues above...America has [i]still[/i] made more progress in under 300 years than other nations have in 2,000 years.

[QUOTE=Gavin][size=1]I'm going to disagree with you here Alex, in my own mind religious moral values and common sense aren't at all on the "opposite ends of the spectrum" and certainly not to an "absurd degree". It could of course depend on someone's view of what is correct morally and their idea of common sense but I don't at all see how someone could claim that they are. In my own case things that are morally correct go hand in hand with what I would call common sense, and I personally think that morals and common sense are very closely linked in most people. Take for example stealing, Seventh Commandment states that "Thou shalt not steal", and most people would hold a very similar view through common sense saying that stealing is wrong. Your own "be excellent to one another" (a very Bill & Ted styled quote) would also apply here. Fifth Commandment states "Thou shalt not kill" and most people would agree that that is simple common sense. In fact Alex I put it to you that there are very, very few instances where what is morally correct (from a religious point of view) and what people would consider common sense are on opposite sides. And in truth much of what we consider to be common sense today, such as our opinions on crime and honourable behaviour (for examples) comes from religion-derived moral values passed down from generation to generation. Again it all comes down to our own point of view on what is moral and our opinion of what common sense is, so what I consider to be moral as well as typical common sense might not be the same as what you would consider to be moral and common sense. But I also think most people would disagree with you on your view that common sense and religiously derived moral values are at the opposite end of the spectrum over what is right. Homosexual behaviour just happens to be one of a few areas where it does come into contention, but for the most part I think they are very similar in what's right and wrong. Again it's all down to your own point of view on the subject. In regard to theocracies, I can only accept that yes they more than likely base what they consider to be right and wrong off their religious beliefs, but as I've stated in the above paragraphs that doesn't mean that it's mutually exclusive to common sense.[/size] [size=1]Alex what you must understand here is that I am as appalled at the execution of these two youths as anyone else here, and perhaps I haven't been as vocal in that respect as I have with other parts of the issue but that doesn't change the fact that I am appalled at their execution. Simply put Alex there are many things I disagree with about many governments across the world, many of which I've already given, but in my mind it all comes down to the simple statement from Christ "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Yes some of the practices in Iran and other theocracies are very wrong, but there are plenty of practices by other non-theocracies and parts of the civilised world that are just as wrong, but we seem to be content to ignore them because it's convenient or we don't consider them to be as wrong as they are. It's a case of the slightly burned pot calling the incinerated kettle black, there's black on both of them, one far more so than the other but the slightly burned kettle can't ignore that it's got a little black on it too. I'm not saying that people shouldn't condemn this act, but they must first look at the wrongs going on in their own country before they can point at Iran's wrongdoings. I hope that explains it, it's nothing to do with letting Iran get away with this kind of brutal and excessive justice, it's merely that people need to look at their own sins before getting all high and mighty. [/size] [size=1]And I agree with you one-hundred percent Alex, it is unjust to execute someone because they're different, whether that be a physical/gender/sexually oriented/physically or mentally handicapped/age/race or any other kind of difference. Actually it's not just "unjust", it's utterly wrong. It's wrong to cut off someone's hand because they steal, it's wrong to kill someone because they've committed a sin, regardless of how grievous. But as I've said before people looking in at the situation must first accept that they're not exactly the pinnacle of moral authority, and must accept their own wrongdoings as well. I'm not hiding behind my religious beliefs or doctrine, I'm just saying what I believe, just as others are, though perhaps now I've expanded it enough to make proper sense. I don't in any way support such acts but I don't agree with people lording their so called civilised beliefs when in their own country felons are executed with poison or electricity and a woman who doesn?t want to keep the child she?s carrying can just have it killed. I hope now people understand what I was getting at.[/size] [size=1]I?m not denying that the Spanish Inquisition was wrong, I shudder to think how Catholic dogma could be twisted so far as to allowed people to break the Fifth Command, go against all the teaching of Christ and still feel like they were doing his work. But I can offer you similar circumstances throughout political history where acts mass murder and near genocide were considered right, in Ireland the Famine killed over 2.5 million people and forced that same number to emigrate or die as well. What most people don?t know is that there was no real famine, the potato crop failed yes, but Ireland produced far more than just potatoes in terms of agricultural produce. Unfortunately the British government at the time saw fit to export everything but the potato crop from Ireland and leave the people starve to death. An entirely economic and political decision which resulting in the death and mass emigration of over 5 million people, part of my ancestral tree ends at the famine, quite a large part in fact but the Famine isn?t considered an act of genocide, because it was covered over with the excuse of a famine. How many Japanese people?s family line ended at Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? Over one hundred and fifty thousand people killed with two bombs, how many more irradiated and left sterile ? How many more would give birth to disabled children because of that same fall-out ? I know it's slightly off what you were talking about, but we can all pick out events in history where the decision at the time was considered right and we now look back on it and see it as being so wrong.[/size] [size=1]I'm not treating Iran as though it were the norm when it comes to theocracies or religious doctrine, because there are other theocracies like Vatican City for instance where law is derived from religious-based morals and the worst you hear about is some women complaining they have to cover themselves a little more, in Vatican City or more precisely the Vatican itself clothing must cover down to the calves and to elbows, which you have to admit isn't a huge request. As for the "grow up" statement, well Alex I could easily turn round and tell the Americans to "grow up" and stop executing their felons for crimes, that they should have a more civilised way of dealing with their worst offenders rather than just poisoning or electrocuting them to death. I could turn round and tell them to grow up and stop killing their unborn children by allowing women to have abortions, because regardless of impinging their much vaunted right to choose it's murder, plain and simple and just as horrific as the murders in Iran. I could turn round and tell them to grow up and actually implement some decent laws regarding firearms when so many people are killed every year through gun violence. I could label more than few American laws as being childish and infantile in their nature Alex, and really childish and infantile would be the polite way to put it as there are much stronger and more accurate words that could be used. I'm more than well aware that America has executed murders judged to be mentally disabled with only the mental age of a child, as I recall the last case took place under "the Governator" in California and Texas is one of the few states that executed minors. So really there are more than few instances of disrepute in the American justice system. Yes Alex it may be downright absurd to agree with the murder of people who have a different sexual orientation, but is it not also downright absurd to agree with the execution of criminals with the mental age of a seven year old ? Is it not also downright absurd to agree with the execution of minors ? Is it not also downright absurd to agree with the murder of an unborn child simply because the mother doesn't want it ? Again I'm not agreeing with what happened and continues to happen in Iran, but I don't agree with people lording their own set of principles over someone else where there are plenty of instances where the law is not so civilised in their own nation and may be better compared with elementary schoolyard sentiments than respectable political governance. Chabichou believes that the law in Iran is correct because it's Islamic law, thus God's law and cannot be wrong, this is her opinion and even if it sounds to you Alex like something said by a child in elementary school it's her right to believe it's correct.[/size] [size=1]Yes, I do appear to have gone an contradicted myself here, though that single quote was taken slightly out of context it does still hold it's own relevance. I never meant, despite what I said that people have no right to criticize what happens in Iran, if they disagree with a system of government or the laws of another country they have the right to disagree with them, but do they have the right to demand that Iran and other countries with Islamic Law to change because they do not accommodate their personal beliefs on morals, right, wrong and common sense ? Do I have the right to demand the Britain and America and all other countries that allow abortion to make it illegal simply because I and people of the same opinion consider it to be wrong ? I have the right to disagree with the law, I have the right to call the law a hundred discourteous names, but do I have the right to demand it be changed simply because I disagree with the law when other, and perhaps even the vast majority of those in the country itself agree with it ?[/size][/QUOTE] Gavin, I've read your post over a few times just to make sure I'm getting what you're saying...and I can distill your post into more or less one sentence: "Americans shouldn't criticize because America is not much better." You brought in things like abortion, execution to portray America as not quite as perfection. Okay. I don't think there's anyone on the planet who would say America is the perfect nation on earth. But we're one of the best. In some 230 years, America has accomplished more in civil rights, social liberties, economic growth, technological advancement, political freedoms, etc., than other nations have accomplished in over 2,000 years. That's saying something, Gavin. Very few nations in the world can say their citizens enjoy the same types of freedoms Americans possess. I can't think of any other nation on the globe where people like Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore could routinely spout whatever nonsense they feel like. I mean...don't you find it odd that Michael Moore hasn't left America yet? He apparently despises most things about it and it seems clear to me he'd probably be happier elsewhere. But he hasn't left. Why is that? Because underneath that vitriolic rhetoric he spews about Terrorist in Chief...he knows that he'd get shot anywhere else. The only reason abortion and execution--really, a deeper level of civil rights--is because America has knocked out a solid 80% of its problems already. In the past century, women have acquired the right to vote, segregation has been abolished, anti-discrimination laws have been written and solidly enforced (even in fast food chains). You should check out the fast food chains around here if you ever get the chance, Gavin. Anti-discrimination laws are no joke and you're going to see multicultural crews, I guarantee it. Women, gays, blacks, asians...the list goes on. Even the handicapped work if they want to. With the current state of Iran...you will rarely (if not never) see that. In your post, you said that the problems in America are ignored or brushed under the rug, so to speak, because people don't see them as such a bad thing. But the fact of the matter is...they aren't as bad as say, a country in the Middle East that still operates under a brutal theocratic rule ripped right out of Henry VIII. America has problems? Abso-freaking-lutely. We can barely agree on what kind of soda is better. We can't even agree on what to teach in our schools. It's like nobody has a good solution to the issue of abortion. It's like nobody has a good solution to unjust executions. (Incidentally, I do have good solutions to those problems.) But to say because America still hasn't banned abortion, or because there are still unjust executions being uh...executed, we shouldn't be telling other nations to shape up? When it's very clear we're one of the leaders in terms of civil rights progression over the past century, when it's very clear that 4,000 people being executed for something as simple as being who they are...playing the "pot calling the kettle black" card just doesn't win the hand. To play that card, you would essentially be establishing America as on the same level as Iran--and abortion, while disturbing surely, is nowhere near on the same level of severity as 4,000 people being executed, or the Inquisition, or any other full-blown mass genocides throughout history. As a brief end-note, I'd assume that in bringing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you've read about the events leading up to it, and are somewhat knowledgeable about it, so I'd assume you're well aware of the inner conflict that Truman was suffering from when he had to decide whether to use "the bomb" or lose thousands upon thousands of American soldiers in a direct land/air assault. I'd also assume you're well aware of the conflict within his own cabinet. Truman had some generals with total cold feet about it. Others were scared out of their minds. Others understood the need for "the bomb." I'd also assume you're well aware that the Japanese Emperor would not have backed down, because pride was at stake. As far as I've read, the Emperor was to the Japanese what Jesus Christ is to Christians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "Us or them" situations in the most basic essence of the phrase. I know you said how it's not quite related to my point...but those two instances of genocide were necessary. These two teens getting hanged wasn't necessary. And that's why your reasoning fails. Fundamentally and philosophically, they're apples and oranges.

[quote name='Lunox][color=darkslateblue']And it is "clearly twisted"...why? You have no right to universally create the 'theocratic perspective'. I find it impossible that there would ever even be a common ground base for theocracy.[/color][/quote] It's "clearly twisted" because people are being executed simply because they're gay. Is a woman getting stoned to death for not covering her entire body not "clearly twisted"? I suppose lynchings in the South aren't "clearly twisted"? I honestly can't believe you actually asked me why this current issue is "clearly twisted," Lunox. It worries me, quite frankly, that you would ask that, because the question carries two implications: 1) You just don't see a problem with it...which would make me wonder what you would have a problem with, because based on what you're using in your argument here...any Fascist movement and actions could easily be condoned. After all, Hitler's extermination squads did target gays, Jews, blacks, etc.--basically all those who did not conform to the so-called "Aryan" ideal. 2) You're taking the Devil's Advocate angle far enough so that you can't even make a reasonable argument anymore. Which is it? [quote][color=darkslateblue]I don't believe Gavin is hiding behind some religious doctrine or moral relativity. He believes in the Christian faith. What do I conclude about the Christian faith when it comes to these things? Christians are supposed to be against homosexuality (as it IS a sin in their religion), but also to believe that everyone can be forgiven and redeemed without dying. What is the problem here? Gavin is simply following his faith, I have no idea where you're coming from.[/color][/quote] Lunox, when you know something is wrong, like Gavin has said (you can go and read through his posts about how he dislikes executing someone for anything), but then in the same paragraph say nobody has the right to criticize it because it's a different culture or religious belief...that's hiding behind moral relativity or religious doctrine. It's just a decorated way of saying: [quote][size=1]"[i]Ya, well, I don't particularily like that, but they can do whatever they want.[/i]"[/size][/quote] ...it's a cop-out of the worst kind...and we all know what Gavin had to say about those kinds of cop-outs. [quote][color=darkslateblue]No one does have the right to tell Muslims to 'grow up'. Muslims take religion seriously. People have a tendency to pervert religion. We can connect two and two, right?[/color][/QUOTE] Good idea: Being excellent to each other. Bad idea: Executing each other. Lunox, taking religion seriously is one thing. Adhering to a religious moral code to the extent that you're executing 4,000 people, subjugating entire portions of the population, and ruling through fear and Fascism...is something completely different. Don't imply they're anywhere remotely close to each other, because they aren't.

[quote name='Gavin][size=1]But that doesn't give you the right to tell the people of Iran and other Muslims to "[i]Grow Up[/i']" because you disagree with their laws. [/size][/quote] Gavin...you're still missing the point. All of what you said regarding religion here is utterly irrelevant, because as history has shown us time and time again, a theocracy--and truly, any faith-derived government--is going to base its laws off of religion-derived moral values and not from common sense. I'm not saying common sense and religious moral values are mutually exclusive ("be excellent to each other" can be found on both "sides"), but in many ways, religious doctrine and common sense are at opposite ends of the spectrum to an absurd degree. You've expressed a view that attempts to be compassionate yet true to your religious upbringing. You condemn homosexuality. You condemn executing someone for being homosexual. You condemn execution in general. And then to close it you express how it still doesn't give anyone the right to tell Iran and other Muslims to "Grow Up" because they don't agree with their laws? It's almost as if you're hiding behind religious doctrine (or perhaps moral relativity) so you don't have to come to terms with what the truth of the matter is: They don't agree with their laws because their laws are unjust...[i]even from a theocratic perspective[/i]. Some of the only times in the history of the human race where we've seen this type of judicial proceedings are things like the Inquisition. People love bringing up the Crusades here...but I don't think people realize just how insane the Inquisition was. One side of my ancestoral tree ends at the Inquisition. There's no other history before that. You seem to be treating this Iran thing as the norm when it comes to religious doctrine/theocracy, because that's simply what their religion says. Things like that are not the norm and largely, have never been the norm. After hearing about stuff like this, people tell Iran to grow up for a very valid reason: because the law is childish and infantile and represents a rather naive worldview one would find in a three-year-old. Nobody here is insulting Iran for the sake of insulting Iran, and nobody here is insulting Chabichou for the sake of insulting her. People are insulting them because what they're saying and doing are downright absurd and echo more elementary schoolyard sentiments than respectable political governance. [quote name='Gavin][size=1]So taking the position of "[i]Ya, well, I don't particularily like that, but they can do whatever they want?[/i']" isn't acceptable.[/size][/quote] I don't want to point out the irony there, but...you've been telling us we have no right to criticize a clearly twisted government that's violating all sorts of human rights, seemingly because we have no place there, because it isn't our place to judge. Gavin, you're a smart guy, so you know where I'm going with this.

I think we need to talk about the concept of "just" laws here. In my mind (and I would hope in everyone's mind), a "just law" is one whose punishment fits the crime. Community service for theft...just law. Cutting off someone's hand for theft...not a just law. Arresting someone for public indecency...just law. Executing someone for engaging in "forbidden" sexual acts? Not a just law in the least. Pointing to such things like moral relativism, different cultures, or saying "they broke the law knowingly, so they deserved the punishment," is missing the larger point there: That such laws like the one that resulted in these two teens' deaths are unjust in every sense of the word, because these two boys were executed for engaging in gay sex. They didn't go on a killing spree. They didn't punch a leader in the gonads. They didn't even present a threat to much of anything, except perhaps the national "way of life." All they did was be themselves, basically. And they were first (severely) tortured and then executed for it. Regardless of different cultures...that is unjust, and is one of the key issues here: what is a just law?

Figured it may be fun to post particular character builds here, let people know what we're thinking, what types of strategies we're using. Here's a build I designed the other day. Mostly, it's an anti-caster build, but it can also serve to severely punish melee fighters. The Edge is a really useful program in mapping out builds. Very comprehensive stuff. [quote]The Edge - Guild Wars Utility [url]http://www.sovereignlegion.com/downloads/theedge.htm[/url] Class: Necromancer / Mesmer Attributes: (cost) '+' indicates Rune attributes Soul Reaping: 5+1 (15) Blood Magic: 9+3 (48) Curses: 10+3 (61) Death Magic: 5 (15) Domination Magic: 10 (61) Total attribute points used: 200/200 Skills: [Attribute] (Energy, Cast Time, Recharge TIme) 1) Vampiric Gaze [Blood Magic] (10,1,5) Spell: Steal 52 health from target foe.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran) Quest: Necromancer Test] 2) Life Siphon [Blood Magic] (10,2,2) Hex: For 22 seconds, target suffers health degeneration of 3, and you gain health regeneration of 3.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran) Quest: The Stolen Artifact] 3) Well of the Profane [Death Magic] (25,3,10) Spell: Exploit nearest corpse to create a well of the profane at its location. For 12 seconds, foes in that area are stripped of all enchantments and cannot be the target of further enchantments. (50% failure chance with Death Magic 4 or less.)[Droknar's Forge (Bartoch) Quest: The Misplaced Sword (Heroes Audience)] 4) Empathy [Domination Magic] (10,2,10) Hex: For 16 seconds, whenever target foe attacks, that foe takes 21 damage.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran) Quest: Mesmer Test] 5) Spiteful Spirit [Curses] (15,2,10) Hex: For 19 seconds, whenever target foe attacks or uses a skill, Spiteful Spirit deals 31 shadow damage to that foe and all adjacent foes. This is an elite skill[Boss: Night Spinechill (Talus Chute), Ceru Gloomrunner (Iron Mines of Moladune), Shadowlord Vogris (Fissure of Woe)] 6) Mark of Subversion [Blood Magic] (10,2,30) Hex: For 9 seconds, the next time target foe casts a spell on an ally, the spell fails and you steal 76 health from that foe.[Ice Tooth Cave (Marna)] 7) Backfire [Domination Magic] (15,3,20) Hex: For 10 seconds, whenever target foe casts a spell, that foe takes 105 damage.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran)] 8) Shame [Domination Magic] (10,2,30) Hex: For 8 seconds, the next time target foe casts a spell on an ally, the spell fails, you steal 11 energy from that foe, and Shame ends.[Ascalon Settlement (Captain Greywind)][/quote]