Baron Samedi

[size=1]Is Azure...Catholic? Anyway, to me, the various denominations of Christiainity [or whatever religion you'd like to pick, lol] don't mean much. I'm aware that there are differences between the denominations, but really, I don't believe it matters too much. From a purely ignroant point of view, of course, heh.[/size]

[size=1]Well, if the banner was for here, it is way too big. I don't really like what you've done to the image/the image you've chosen either. To be blunt, it looks like he's hiding beneath a coat or something. So, low marks for the image chosen. The text is alright, but it doesn't really grab me as such. I think some more layout ideas could have been used. And your banner has no border [Aaarrgh!]. It isn't the worst banner I have ever seen, but it could do with more work ~_^[/size]

[size=1]I think that it will be pretty close between Atheists and Christians, but uiltimately more Christians. And with a slight peppering of some other religions.[/size]

[size=1]Why wouldn't the ***** just make me her Padawan?[/size]

[size=1]It's the name. Everyone thinks Methuselah is old because of her name. But I have to agree with Lore. 900 or over was the [b]least[/b] of my expectations ;)[/size]

[size=1]Welcome animelovergirl1. Generally, threads at OB are expected to be thoughtful, and have a good chance of creating an interesting discussion...so, this thread might not last long. We will see. Anyway, in the spirit of the thing, I am wondering what I will be having for lunch, and how I am going to align these two elements on my website that I am working on. Firefox is getting it right, but IE is being a ***** and will probably need a fix, so I'm waiting for some help to arrive.[/size]

[size=1]Generally [in summer] I am wearing a hang-ten shirt [the 'long-sleeve' version of short sleeved] or a Quiksilver [short-sleeved] shirt with longer-length Maui & Sons denim shorts. And a blue NY hat. I guess you could classify me as.... laid-back casual surf/skate/generic brand person. Essentially though, I am myself. If that gives you any sort of accurate description.[/size]

[size=1]I remember your Myr retriever from last time ^_^ You can tell that compared to the other pictures, this is definitely the finished model. However, there is one thing which is really bugging me. I think the actual creatures should be 'shinier', and the land that they're on have the matt finish, rather than a glossy one. Also, how come the Myr retriever has one three-clawed foot, and one 'one-toed' foot?[/size]

[size=1]Yeah, attachments are great, but its not what OB is here for. And, as a surprise bonus, if you're not logged in on OB, you cannot see attachments! Aren't they clever? Now, as for your banner...I cannot really read the red text [which also looks choppy], the fading of the white backgrounds is not very well done, your titlte doesn't stand out, and the quality is low. Oh, and it doesn't have a border. But keep trying 0:^)[/size]

[size=1][quote name='Azure']I quoted you? O_o Are you referring to the bold text in my edit, where I state the "Homosexuality is right because animals are homosexual" and the "Why must you come between two people's love" comments? I wasn't quoting anyone specific (or else I would have used quote tags). I was just showing the only two arguments pro-homosexuals have presented, and demonstrating why they are flawed.[/quote] No..err. I don't think I wrote that paragraph very well. lol. I quoted you, but the quote of yours that I used was directly above the twisting comment that you made in your own post. I think. Yes, thats it, lol.[/size]

[size=1]I had an idea late last night, in terms of when people update, and a new way to show it. What if you did it like an email inbox type updated thing? [In terms of appearance] If they have updated since you last visited, then they will stay blue [which also overcomes the multiple updates per day issue]. And if you want to 'mark all read' then you could. So, if they updated a week ago and you still haven't visited them, then they will be blue. If you've already been to their site today, but they update again, they will turn blue. Just an idea. I hope I explained it clearly enough, lol.[/size]

[size=1][quote name='Raid3r']I'm curious as to what demographics project you attribute the reason for asking such a question?[/quote] [quote name='Sword Breaker']I'm just kinda curious.[/quote] Does that answer ya question ~_^ Heh.[/size]

[size=1][quote name='Break']I think you're both addressing homosexuality completely the wrong way.[/quote] In case any of that was aimed at me, I would like to clarify that I believe what you said. Other people have referred to homosexuality as harming society...which is crap. So, thats where I was coming from.[/size]

[size=1]Generally, I think most of OB resides within the 11-15 age range. There are a few older people *cough[R]in/angercough* and our dear Panda, as well as a few older members [err, haha, members that have been here longer] that will reside in the 16-20 and 21-25 age brackets. But the majority of 'anime' is something taken on board by the 11-15 age group I feel, but more predominantly, this age bracket has more free time and less of the rigours of daily life. i.e. they have more time [and more of an inclination] to come to a place like OB. [On a side note, I am not an anime fan][/size]

[size=1]The following is the awards handed out by Edge magazine. The first one for each section is the winner, followed by the next two shortlisted. [B]Best Game[/B] Half-Life 2 (PC) The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventure (GameCube) Halo 2 (Xbox) [B]Award for Innovation[/B] Half-Life 2 (PC) Katamari Damacy (PS2) The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventure (GameCube) [B] Best Visual Design[/B] Half-Life 2 (PC) Far Cry (PC) Katamari Damacy (PS2) [B]Best Audio Design [/B] Thief: Deadly Shadows (PC) Katamari Damacy (PS2) Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2) [B]Best Online Experience[/B] Halo 2 (Xbox) Monster Hunter (PS2) Final Fantasy XI (PS2/PC) [B]Best Developer[/B] Rockstar North The Creative Assembly Sony London [B]Best Publisher[/B] Nintendo Rockstar Ubisoft [B]Best Hardware[/B] Nintendo DS Gametrak Mawaru: Made in Wario (Game Boy Advance) So, what do you think of these then?[/size]

[size=1]How do heterosexuals who purposely choose not to have children benefit society? As I said in an earlier post, "What should we do with them...pass a law saying that every couple must have two children? A boy and a girl?" Homosexuals do not harm society. Beastiality brings us back to a period when sex was instinctive...and lacked any 'connection'. It harms society. Incest is dangerous, and goes against all moral values, not just religious ones.[/size]

[size=1][quote=Azurewolf]Sorry I'm not formatting your text, Baron. Anyway, to address your point, you are now treading on another facet of sex: making love with infected or reproductively-unsound persons. Why should two people who genuinely love each other be forced not to make love because one of the partners has, say, HIV or Huntington's? Ignoring that discussion, though (since it has nothing to do with the thread - yet), I would say you are implying that the only redeeming quality of homosexuality is that it bears no disgruntled offspring. I'm willing to ignore the genomic and biological aspect of the argument and agree that homosexuality has a saving grace because it doesn't result in an unnatural "love child." Yes, that takes care of the heterosexual versions of incest and bestiality. Now, what about homosexual incest and bestiality? I know I said I'm willing to ignore it, but based on your response, I may not be able to disregard the genomic and biological aspect this time around. *shrugs*[/quote] Thats OK Azure. I don't format when I quote. Plus I don't know who uses what, really, lol. Essentially, I was referring to incest, and whether incest rights should even be an issue, what with the danger of a malformed child being produced. I was touching lightly on why each of those issues [incest, beastiality, pedophilia and necrophilia] could not really have any points applied to them [in favour]. Because doing that would be condoning actions that truly do harm society. So, I wasn't saying that the only redeeming quality of homosexuality was the offspring thing. That was my argument against incest, lol. Incest is wrong, but technically, you could say that there is nothing wrong with it as it doesn't produce offspring. The fact is though, that offspring is only one of the reasons people look down on incestual practices. [quote=Azure 'is teh cool' Wolf] Yes, Sara has pointed out why people have been stating the whole animal thing, and so we won't have to go into an argument about whose interpretation is right, haha. Sara is indeed awesome. While we don't need to argue the point any further since I was in the wrong (but only because the point was wrongly stated :p), I should point out that this paragraph seems a little hypocritical: you are saying that animal sexual behavior demonstrates how something is not entirely unnatural, and then you turn around and say that the animal sexual behavior between a horse and a donkey is too different to be applied to humans...[/quote] Heh. I was refrring to other threads [lol] where it has been proven that other animals do indulge in homosexual practices. Which proves homosexuality is not unnatural. The other part of that quote you, err, quoted [again: lol] was to reference the 'cross-species' mating of horses and donkeys to produce mules. And to show that beastiality was wrong, lol. [quote name='Teh Wolf'] "Love child" argument again, huh? I'm not doing any twisting, and I don't recall saying that you specifically made any twisting of any sort. If you want, change the "brother and sister" to "brother and brother," but my point still stands: the points presented just aren't logically sound.[/quote] You referenced 'brother and sister', and I said that there is a victim. People have been stating that 'it's only wrong if it hurts someone' and the person hurt in this case, would be any offspring. Incest on any level is wrong though, whether or not it produces offspring. That 'twisting' comment was right after my last quote [ie. from your post] and said something like 'You can twist these comments around to fit your purposes' [or something, lol] and I was saying that I thought your comments were very twisted, because you didn't look at all the facts. But now I feel awful, because I felt vindictive when writing my previous post, but you were so cool :p So, in the name of good sport: Reply. -Josh XD[/size]

[size=1]Go to an image host [I tend to use [url=http://www.imageshack.us]Imageshack[/url]] and upload it. Take the link that most resembles a normal URL [i.e. [url]http://www.imageshack.us/39/image.jpg][/url] not one like 'http://www.imageshack.us/39/view=.php?image.jpg' or whatever. Then, use [*img] tags to paste it into your signature. As with [*b] tags, put them around the URL of the picture. But, don't use the astrisks, and close with [*/img] [again, no asterisk].[/size]

[size=1][quote name='kenshinbabe'] His family has to watch him slowly die as he gets injected with almost the same thing that they put animals to sleep with, which I also deeply disapprove of.[/quote] Are you talking about putting the animals to sleep? If so, then that is stupid and you are the one being cruel...unless of course, you can tell me why it is kind to extend an animals suffering and pain? Because thats why they put animals to sleep. They don't just go "Oh dear, I don't like Binky any more. Off to the Vets."[/size]

[size=1][quote name='Altron']Sure, I'm a Christian, too, but we live in AMERICA.[/quote]That's nice. But I live in AUSTRALIA. Aren't capitals fun? I think DarkOtakuBoy is the most intelligent new member I've seen recently [judging by his post]. And he likes Bad Religion. Must be an alright guy. Anyway, just because you don't like the idea of something, does this mean that this something should have no rights? [quote name='Adahn']A donkey and a horse are completely different species. A species is defined as 'organisms capable of mating and producing viable offspring'. Mules are sterile.[/quote] I know that. Sorry if I didn't make it clear in my post. Anyway, I'd call a donkey and a horse a lot closer than a human and a...dog. Or whatever floats their particular boat ~_^ Gay sex is between members of the same species who are involved in a consentual [and generally] loving manner. Waaay different to animal sex. [quote name='Adahn']Would you care to explain how humans having 'morals and ethics' supports your point?[/quote] I think most people would agree with me that having intercourse with an animal is [b]wrong[/b]. [quote name='Adahn']From what I know, male-male sexual relationships are more enjoyable for one person than the other. Since we can't ask animals how they feel, there's no reason for us to assume that the passive partner enjoys it any more or less than an animal would.[/quote] So, sex is for enjoyment? Only? There need be nothing else involved... as a Christian [which you obviously are] you seem to be spreading rather a contrary message. [quote]So, I guess you don't have anything against bestiality or adultery, then? Those are religious ideals.[/quote] He was arguing against people who use a religious base [b]as their sole reason for disliking something[/b]. Geez, why can't people understand what they read? [quote]I think male-male sex is extremely disgusting and wrong. Do you want an intellectual reason? Well, like I said before, it's akin to bestiality and adultery. It is unnatural, perverse, and disgusting, just like bestiality and adultery.[/quote] Is it terribly different to anal sex? Not incredibly. [quote=Raid3r]Children need a defined system of human interaction if they are to grow up psychologically sound. A child will be confused if he sees 2 moms, or 2 dads, instead of 1 mother and 1 father. The family is the amino acid of society. To break it up or damage it is an irreparable blow to the fabric of that society itself. I cannot think of even 1 way a society would benefit from accepting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Keyword: benefit.[/quote] Which means of course that children from single parent families [like me] are psychologically unstable. And what about partners who don't have children? Or can't. What should we do with them...pass a law saying that every couple must have two children? A boy and a girl? [quote name='Afire']I'm sorry Maladjusted, but how could a child learn true communication with the opposite sex with two same sex parents? [/quote] Again, what about single parent families? And, what about schools, and socialising? And, if everybody acted how their parents did towards one another, men would still be able to beat their wives. [quote name='Adahn']So, everyone, what would you say to the possibility of homosexual relationships being prohibited in the Bible only pertaining to the situation that existed at that time?[/quote] Actually, I don't. Based on what you've written, I think that the issue of love was not a factor in the Bible, and that the Bible places a ban on any sort of sexual actions between two men. [quote name='Azurewolf']and for Adahn for forcing the point out: every argument people have made for homosexuality in this thread... well... it can be applied to incest and beastiality (among other things).[/quote] What do you mean? Are you saying that being sexually involved with another species is acceptable? That risking malformed offspring is acceptable? That taking advantage oif a child is acceptable? That desecrating the dead is acceptable? You tell me where it's acceptable. Go on. Which of those is acceptable? [quote name='Drix][quote=Altron']I believe that you don't choose to be gay, it just is something you're born with,[/quote][/quote] Drix, man, he is wrong, but so are you. Nobody is born to be genetically pre-disposed towards being gay, but at the same time, people do not actually choose to be gay. [quote name='Drix']Once again, where do you draw these conclusions? And ?openmindedness? is a wonderful world brought up in this thread very often? who the hell thought of it? Think about it for a second without suffering an aneurism. ?Open-mindedness? basically means accepting whoever?s viewpoint is told to you without giving any regard to the other, not merely discriminating between the two, but eating right off the plate of any ?gay rights? advocate. That?s openmindedness? I?m just as ?openminded? as anyone here, that doesn?t mean I have to agree![/quote] What you're saying there is not open mindedness, its foolishness. Openmindedness involves being open to the opinions of others...not necessarily taking them for your own. [quote name='Drix']Guys, Adahn does have a point here. You can support acts such as necrophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality on the same grounds you support homosexuality! By repeating ?No no, that?s a totally different issue? as your only rebuttal isn?t proving anything. Not only that, why can?t a son and father get a civil union? Why can?t they have shared health insurance? Why can?t my college roommate and I get a civil union for our stay at college and reap a few benefits off of that one? You?re going to tell us that we can?t because we aren?t in ?love?? Since when did the government ever demand a marriage be recognized between two people that ?love? eachother?[/quote] No he doesn't. Read higher up my post. As to why only [b]couples[/b] should get civil unions [or marriage, whatever] it is because the relationship is different. And the circumstances are different. There is a difference between 'couples' and 'friends'. [quote name='Lunai']Some members, I would imagine, need to get out of high school and into the real world with the rest of us.[/quote] Azure is in college, or Uni, or whatever Americans call it. And just because someone is younger than you, or is still in the education system references nothing to their intelligence. Don't forget it. [quote=Azurewolf]"Homosexuality is right because animals are homosexual." "Animals also do other species (see mule), so beastiality must be right as well." Notice how I don't even need to go out of the realm of animal SEXUAL behavior to make my point. I'm not making an extreme case about it at all: sticking with the sex acts. Was I even the one to bring up anime sexuality? Nope.[/quote] Nobody said homosexuality was right because animals do it. It might not be right, but it shows that it is not entirely [b]unnatural[/b]. I'd say that humans are a lot diferent to a horse and a donkey though, wouldn't you? In terms of, oh, you know, intelligence and cognitive ability? And in terms of realising "Oh God, this isn't Lisa, [b]its my dog[/b]". [quote=Azurewolf]"Why must you come between two people's love?!" "You are right, we shouldn't come between this brother and sister." Again, based on logic presented, hardly a farfetched thought.[/quote] There is a victim in this. The children who may be born. I'm hardly the one doing the twisting here Azure. In fact, I'd have to say that your points are doing a helluva lot of twisting. And mis-managing. [Finally, after three whole pages of typing, I'm done][/size]

[size=1]To qualify this debate here once and for all: [quote=Source]The two I chose are "Attitude toward the State," and "Attitude toward planned social progress". The first is easy to understand: what think you of government? Is it an object of idolatry, a positive good, necessary evil, or unmitigated evil? Obviously that forms a spectrum, with various anarchists at the left end and reactionary monarchists at the right. The American political parties tend to fall toward the middle. Note also that both Communists and Fascists are out at the right-hand end of the line; while American Conservatism and US Welfare Liberalism are in about the same place, somewhere to the right of center, definitely "statists." (One should not let modern anti-bureaucratic rhetoric fool you into thinking the US Conservative has really become anti-statist; he may want to dismantle a good part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but he would strengthen the police and army.) The ideological libertarian is of course left of center, some all the way over to the left with the anarchists. That variable works; but it doesn't pull all the political theories each into a unique place. They overlap. Which means we need another variable. "Attitude toward planned social progress" can be translated "rationalism"; it is the belief that society has "problems," and these can be "solved"; we can take arms against a sea of troubles. Once again we can order the major political philosophies. Fascism is irrationalist; it says so in its theoretical treatises. It appeals to "the greatness of the nation" or to the volk, and also to the fuhrer-prinzip, i.e., hero worship. Call that end (irrationalism) the "bottom" of the spectrum and place the continuum at right angles to the previous "statism" variable. Call the "top" the attitude that all social problems have findable solutions. Obviously Communism belongs there. Not far below it you find a number of American Welfare Liberals: the sort of people who say that crime is caused by poverty, and thus when we end poverty we'll end crime. Now note that the top end of the scale, extreme rationalism, may not mark a very rational position: "knowing" that all human problems can be "solved" by rational actions is an act of faith akin to the anarchist's belief that if we can just chop away the government, man truly free will no longer have problems. Obviously I think both top and bottom positions are whacky; but then one mark of Conservatism has always been distrust of highly rationalist schemes. Burke advocated that we draw "from the general bank of the ages, because he suspected that any particular person or generation has a rather small stock of reason; thus where the radical argues "we don't understand the purpose of this social custom; let's dismantle it," the conservative says "since we don't understand it, we'd better leave it alone." Anyway, those are my two axes; and using them does tend to explain some political anomalies. For example: why are there two kinds of "liberal" who hate each other? But the answer is simple enough. Both are pretty thorough-going rationalists, but whereas the XIXth Century Liberal had a profound distrust of the State, the modern variety wants to use the State to Do Good for all mankind. Carry both rationalism and statism out a bit further (go northeast on our diagram) and you get to socialism, which, carried to its extreme, becomes communism. Similarly, the Conservative position leads through various shades of reaction to irrational statism, i.e., one of the varieties of fascism. On the anti-statist end of the scale we can see the same tendency: extreme anti-rationalism ends with the Bakunin type of anarchist, who blows things up and destroys for the sake of destruction; the utterly rationalist anti-statist, on the other hand, persuades himself that somehow there are natural rights which everyone ought to recognize, and if only the state would get out of the way we'd all live in harmony; the sort of person who thinks the police no better than a band of brigands, but doesn't think that in the absence of the police, brigands would be smart enough to band together. [/quote] [img]http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.jpg[/img] There is your answer.[/size]

[size=1]Hehehe. Or, rather "Heh." That was another joy to read Solo. Once again, you exploit the most innocuous of ideas, and turn it into a brilliant read.[/size]

[size=1][quote=Adahn]*spawns a mini-debate* Why is sex between different species wrong? *thinks of mules* Also, since when does love have anything to do with sex? Mutual enjoyment can be shared in either case. I'm not ignoring anything but what seems obvious to me. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me.[/quote]How could it be anything but obvious? With humans, there is more to it than enjoyment. There is [generally...] love involved too. An animal cannot experience love, in any way that we can acknowledge. There is a significant difference between a donkey and a horse mating, and a human and another animal mating. Not only would it involve coupling with a completely different species, but as humans, we know more than survival and procreation. We have morals, and ethics. And, aside from humans, there are only three other species known to have sex for 'enjoyment'. Dolphins, pigs, and... monkeys [not sure about the monkeys though...].[/size]

[size=1]How many more are there? I remember you showed me the site you made with all of the stories on there...and I have this feelings that there are a lot more left to go. Which is actually a great thing :^D Your stories are funny, but dark, and the violence and swearing only accentuates that. But you also take a back-seat often,and know how to play off various...incidents that have occurred. I love reading this.[/size]

[size=1][quote name='Drix']If a homosexual couple walks into a church, swap rings, and the priest gives them their blessing, I don?t care. If they want to call eachother husband, and husband? I don?t care. If they want to visit eachother at hospitals, and have equal property transfer; I don?t care! In fact, I support their ability to do so![/quote] That is good. I don't see why they should ban gay marriages though. I'm glad you support their ability to do so, and wouldn't interfere with that right. It is people who want to ban it that I think are unreasonable. Heterosexual relationships and marriage don't always mean the best for the baby. A fair number of them don't even have babies, so, excepting "sociological non-religious purposes", there is no reason to ban them...and the "sociological non-religious purposes" don't work either, as there is nothing to suggest that gay marriaged partners will be any better or worse than straight partners. Basically, no reason to ban gay marriage. [quote name='Adahn']On that note, to me, man-on-man relations are about as bad as having sexual relations with animals. The person could enjoy it, and so could the animal. It's just an example of how something that doesn't hurt anyone can still be considered wrong.[/quote] Ignoring, of course, the fact that it is cross-species and mutual love is not an issue...[/size]