DBZgirl88

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Freude][COLOR=#B33D79][SIZE=1][u]Hey, I've a question:[/u] A lot of people here said that they could understand a particular language but can't speak it. Something to do with our brain? A space-saving method, perhaps? [/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]I think it's because you can't talk and think at the same time, lol. We're already limited in the language, so we have to think about what we will say, and then say it. Even if I know the grammar rules well, I forget how to apply them when I'm speaking. I have that problem with all languages I learn, even french, which I've had alot of exposure to. I admit I'm pretty quiet person. I find it difficult to start conversations and usually prefer to remain a silent observer. This is probably the main cause of my problem with languages. Right now, I can barely even understand japanese when it is spoken. We have many listening excerises in class, and the speed is just too high. My teacher says something really fast and then we all try to repeat after her and it's hard. I think it's important to go slowly at first.[/COLOR]

[color=#004A6F][quote name='Panda']My parents will speak to me in Japanese and I end up answering them in english! Oh well.[/quote]Lol, it's even worse in my familty! Not only do we answer our mom in english, we mix up arabic and english in the same sentence. For instance, when we want to say "do the dishes" we say "do the jali". Tea is called "shai" in arabic, so my sister says to me "Yo, go make shai". I do make a lovely cup of tea if I do say so myself :). On top of that, we even go so far as to take english verbs and conjugate them as though they were Arabic! After doing so, we realize how strange it is and all of us end up laughing at whoever does that. To make nouns plurar, we usually add "at" at the end of the word, and we even end up doing that with english words! Example, "the magazines" would become "el magazinat". It's so weird...and not neccesary. The arabic word for magazine is "majala", so I don't know why we mix up the two up. My family likes to call this mixing up "aangalizi". Altron -Speaking of french pronounciation, arabic actually has a letter that has the same pronounciation as the french "r". My sister and I found our selves better in french and spanish pronouniciation, simply because of our knowledge of arabic. It's cool how languages can be so different yet so similar ina way. Another cool fact: The only sounds the don't exist in arabic are g, p, and v, though arabs have no problem pronouncing g and v. In fact, certaain arabs, particularily Egyptians, replace j with g. Others replace a with g. Yeah I know that's weird. Meh. The letter that trouble arabs the most is p. When you spell omething for them that has the letter b or p in it, they always check by asking, "b with the stick up or down?" *In arabic accent ofcourse :D.[/color]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Panda]My first language was Japanese. At home that is all my parents, and grandparents, spoke. My dad has many recordings of my brother and I playing and telling stories that were all in Japanese. That all changed when my brother started school. He didn't speak english so he was put into "English as a second language" class with all the hispanic kids who didn't speak english. After that my parents made us speak english at home so we would do better in school. I still understand Japanese but when it comes to speaking my language skills are very much lacking. My parents will speak to me in Japanese and I end up answering them in english! Oh well. I really wish I would have kept up with my Japanese language skills but at the time my parents wanted us to do well in school. Basically I can translate only one way with ease- Japanese to english. If only I could master the other way I would be applying for high paying job translating for big business![/QUOTE]I know how you feel. I was born in Saudi, so my first language was Arabic. My family came to Canada during the Gulf war. I had just finished grade 1, so I am lacking in reading and speaking skills. Noting that Arabs speak nowadays differently then they write, and even different grammar and vocaulary, I find it difficult to understand books that I am reading. In addition, instead of using vowels like english does to make each syllable in a word (in the syllable "ba", the letter b is followed by a to complete it), we put a specific marking on top of the letter, so we would have our letter for b, and then put a line on top to make "ba" a line under to make "bi" and a weird marking for "boo" and just a circle on top if the b ends the syllable, as in bo[B]b[/B]. Adults are knowledgeable enough to read without these markings, because no two words are alike in arabic, even without them. In newspapers, these markings are left out. I can read them a bit, but barely. I am also low on vocabulary, though I can still recognise whether the word is a noun, verb, or adjective. It's like someone telling you: "I adore cats". Maybe I don't know what "adore" means, but I know it's a verb. My younger brother, who's 16 was also born in Saudi, but never got Arabic education. He started SK in Canada. My mother has a done a good job in teaching him considering she isn't a teacher. He reads better than I do. Grammar, however, I think I'm better at. My little brother and sister were born in Canada, and my sister knows how to read a bit but she's really low on comprehension. My little brother is only five, but he knows his letters and knows what the accents on them do. I was trying to teach him how to read small words but he has a very low attention span. Oh well. :rolleyes: I also know french, but I think I'm losing it a bit. I was in extended french for grade 7 and 8, so we were taught in french 60% of the time. I stopped that particular program when I went to highschool, but continued taking french as a course till grade 11. I tried spanish too, that was pretty fun while it lasted. Finally, I'm taking Japanese now as my elective. The course I'm in is going at a really fast pace. I can barely keep up. I also noticed that my biggest weakness in learneing languages is reading out loud and speaking. I usually have a very good accent, and my Japanese teacher thinks I sound almost japanese when I speak, but I'm too slow. I need to practice the sentence a few times before getting it right.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Does anyone here know more than one language? Anyone studying a language in a particular at school? Although grammar in general can get pretty dry at times, it's still quite interesting how languages differ from each other and how they are similar. Certain parts of speech are missing in some languages, yet they have other components that make up for it. And certain sounds are also missing, or there are extra sounds. Word order varies from language to language aswell. It's also interesting how expressions used in certain languages make complete sense to their native speakers, yet leave others scratching their heads. For example, English is the only language which has the concept of the word "it" (as far as I know). In French, there is only "il" and "elle". These mean "he and "she", yet they are also applied to inanimate objects, so in a way, "il" and "elle" can also mean "it" in a sense. I think many other latin based langages apply genders to inanimate objects. Arabic has this too. In addition, arabic applies genders to all of it's pronouns except "I", "we" and dual pronouns: I -Ana You (to a male) -Anta You (to a female)- Ante You (to two people, m/f) -Antooma. (Dual) He -hoowa She -heeya We (2+ people m/f) -Nah'noo You (to 3+ females) -Antun You (to 3+males) -Antoom They (2 people m/f) -Humaa (Dual) They (3+ males ) -Hoom The (3+females) -Hoonna Heh heh heh, a little confusing right? Anyway, it'd would be interesting for people to share the little things about the languages they know that make those languages unique, or that make them similar to languages from completely different regions. Maybe we can share vocabulary, weird expressions and stuff like that.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I came upon theotaku.com when I was in search for good anime sites. It seemed pretty good, even back in the olden days lol. I was one of the people who would send their art in by email, unlike the new system we have with myOtaku. I decided to check out OtakuBoards out of curiousity. I registered and account but never statred posting until myOtaku came out. OtakuBoards is the first forumI ever visited.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Okay, I figured we could try to refresh the topic and approach it from a different point of view. I decided to look through my trusty biology textbook and found to my surprise that it sees evolution as the [B]core theme[/B] of biology! Interesting. Very interesting indeed. Well, if the concept of evolution is so important to biologists I guess I should keep an open mind. I decided to thouroghly read the material over. I will quote from my textbook and then pose my questions. [QUOTE][U][B]Darwin and Natural Selection[/B][/U] Charles Darwin brought biology into focus in 1859 when he published The Origin of Species. Darwin?s book presented two main concepts. First, Darwin argued convincingly from several lines of evidence that contemporary species arose from a succession of ancestors through a process of "descent with modification," his phrase for evolution. Darwin?s second concept in The Origin of Species was his theory for how life evolves. This proposed mechanism of evolution is called natural selection. Darwin synthesized the concept of natural selection from observations that by themselves were neither new nor profound. Others had the pieces of the puzzle, but Darwin saw how they fit together. He inferred natural selection by connecting two observations: [INDENT][B]OBSERVATION #1:[/B] Individual variation. Individuals in a population of any species vary in many heritable traits. [B]OBSERVATION #2:[/B] Struggle for existence. Any population of a species has the potential to produce far more offspring than the environment can possibly support with food, space, and other resources. This overproduction makes a struggle for existence among the variant members of a population inevitable. [B]INFERENCE:[/B] Differential reproductive success. Those individuals with traits best suited to the local environment generally leave a disproportionately large number of surviving, fertile offspring. This differential reproductive success of some individuals over others means that certain heritable traits (those carried by the best-suited individuals) are more likely to appear in each new generation. Darwin called differential reproductive success natural selection, and he envisioned it as the cause of evolution [/INDENT] We see the products of natural selection in the exquisite adaptations of organisms to the special problems posed by their environments ( FIGURE 1.16). Notice, however, that natural selection does not create adaptations; rather, it screens the heritable variations in each generation, increasing the frequencies of some variations and decreasing the frequencies of others over the generations. Natural selection is an editing process, with heritable variations exposed to environmental factors that favor the reproductive success of some individuals over others. The camouflage of the sea horse in FIGURE 1.16 did not result from individuals changing during their lifetimes to look more like their backgrounds and then passing that improvement on to offspring. The adaptation evolved over many generations by the greater reproductive success in each generation of individuals that were innately better camouflaged than the average member of the sea horse population. [IMG]http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/campbell6e_awl/medialib/assets/e-book/fig/thm/fig1-16.jpg[/IMG] [B]Fig 1-16. Evolutionary adaptation[/B] is a product of natural selection. This sea horse lives among kelp (seaweed). The fish looks so much like a seaweed that it lures prey into the seeming safety of the kelp forest and then eats them. The camouflage also helps prevent the sea horse itself from becoming prey. [U][B]Natural Selection and the Diversity of Life[/B][/U] Darwin proposed that natural selection, by its cumulative effects over vast spans of time, could produce new species from ancestral species. This would occur, for example, if a population fragmented into several populations isolated in different environments. In these various arenas of natural selection, what began as one species could gradually diversify into many species as the geographically isolated populations adapted over many generations to different sets of environmental problems. Descent with modification accounts for both the unity and the diversity we observe in life. In many cases, features shared by two species are due to their descent from common ancestors, and differences between the species are due to natural selection modifying the ancestral equipment in different environmental contexts.[/QUOTE] Okay so natural selection is a proccess by which a population of organisms becomes better adapted to ther environment. Let's say we had a population of beetles that lived all over africa. Although these beetles live in different regions, they are perfectly capable of mating and producing healthy, fertile offspring. These beetles have many variations in their heritable traits. They come in a wide variety of colors. Some are dark and some light, and some can easily camouflage themselves in their surroundings. Some have longer antanaes than others. Some have longer wings, and some just have longer and narrower bodies. So in this imaginary population, each individual varies greatly from others in the population. Noting that the environment changes when moving from one region to another in Africa it should come to mind that some of these beetles can survive better in certain regions. Some of these beetles may be green, so they are better camouflage in trees and grasses. Some beetles may be a sandy color, and therefore have less chance of becoming prey in the desert. Some may be red, and can easily match the color of certain flowers. So, as time passes by, the specific beetles that are better suited for specific environments increase in number at a faster rate than others. Green beetles are hidden better in the grass, so beetles of other colors are more likely to be caught. There would be a higher ratio of green beetles than beetles of other colors, and then these surviving green beetles have a chance to produce more offspring. What I don't understand is this: Why is it that biologists say that natural selection increases diversity in organisms? From reading the obove, I see that there is already diversity there. All that natural selection has done is islolate specific traits to different regions. Another thing I don't understand is this: Biologists would say that these beetles have a common ancestor. What is that common ancestor? These beetles used to live together and had all these variations, yet they were still able to reproduce. How does isolating them into different regions make them different then they were back then? Why would it be that over time they won't be able to reproduce with the beetles from other regions? This concept of "common ancestor" really puzzles me. I look at diagrams showing how the many types of finches evolved from one common ancestor. The diagram shows the "common ancestor" as a sandy brown, dull-looking fnich, and then it branches off into all these different variaties of finches of different colors and beaks. But wait a minute. When I read about natural selection, it said that these variations were already there in the first place. The became isolated to specific habitiats over time. Why would the "common ancestor" be so simple and general compared to the new species it branches off into? Another question that comes to mind is how these many variations in a species arose in the first place. It's not just some individuals in a population being different than others. There's many different variations. How could so many variations simply arise from mutation, when it is already so rare? (Yes, mutations are indeed quite rare, and that's a fact). Here is something I would also like to ask about which is not mentioned in my textbook quotation. There are certain species that are more closely related to species that live in their region than to those living in other regions but having an almost identical lifestyle. [B]Example:[/B] There is a flying squirrel that lives in Austrlia that is very similar to the North American flying squirrel. However, this australian flying squirrel is closer in relation to Koalas and Kangaroos because all these creatures are marsupials (the mothers have that pouch). How is it that these squirrels with different ancestors are so alike? How did different ancestors both evolve into squirrels by chance?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004A6F][quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Again, what does gene splicing have to do with Darwinism? And what splicing is done by humans, because when I started talking about bacteria, you demanded something else.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]Okay,when I first stated that there have been no good mutations discovered so far, you replied to me by giving examples of "good mutations". They didn't seem like the naturally occured when you explained them. It seems like the scientists forced them to happen. Maybe I misunderstood you.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]And I really see no relevance of this to anything pertaining to Darwinism. Most of this post seemed to consist of just fancy words, no offense.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]Just a bunch of "fancy words" huh? I'm just trying to explain some things I though people should ask themselves. Okay, I'll put it in more simple terms. If you want to count gene splicing as mutation that's fine, okay. But gene splicing is done by humans, do you know what I mean? It does not happen on it's on accord, unless you count. The theory of evolution does not depend on gene splicing, it depends on [B]random[/B] mutation. A random mutation is very very rare. And so far there has been no random mutation that is beneficial to a creature. If you repeatedly try to force the mutation of a gene, that is [B]not[/B] random. Mutation would occur much faster and many more times than usual, and therefore the probability of a "good mutation" arising would highly increase. As for entropy, it doesn't have to do with evolution because it disproves it :) . I know that because organisms are highly ordered, they increase the entropy in their surroundings, therefore the overall entropy of the Universe does in fact increase. They must use energy to maintain this highly ordered state, because it would obviously go to a lower ordered state if it didn't, right? What I am asking is how would a cell randomly form if it does not have the mechanisms to use energy to achieve a highly ordered state in the first place? Can any of you possibly imagine DNA and proteins forming and phospholipids actually lining up to form a cell membrane? They cannot come together with out a source of energy to keep them from falling apart during the formation. As for plant mutation Azure, I thought new species of plants are made simply by cross breeding different species together. Broccili for instance, is a mix of cauliflower and peas. That's not mutation, that's just reproduction using very different sets of genes. The other species are made when scientists splice the genes with traits they want into another plant's genes. No one has actually left a plant alone and come back to find it's offspring a different species than it. That's just ludacris. Anyway, I have a hard time trying to explain my self, so If you don't understand me, please try to take some time to look through some of the readings I suggested in my first post if you want.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]DaggerIX1 is totally on a roll in this thread. Modern-day apes are the result of as many years of evolution as man is, because they diverged from a *different* common ancestor. Chabichou, think about this. To say that evolution cannot give rise to a new species, you are going to have to show to us how there is [I]no evidence of a common ancestor between any two species[/I]. And that you CANNOT do and we all know it. Since you are making this powerful claim in opposition to evolution, the burden of proof rests on you. You lose.[/QUOTE]However, there is no proof either that there is a common ancestor between two species, whatever they may be. Just because your DNA of these two species is more similar than those of others, it doesn't mean that they are related. This is just a theory. There is absolutely no proof that it's true, contrary to what evolutionists want you to believe. There are so many flaws in the theory of evolution that people simply overlook. It has no scientific back up. There is no proof that organic molecules were formed by chance. The theory therefore does not in fact have "scientific proof" to back it up. There are no tansitional forms between differnt species. Sure, there have been fossils of whale like creatures with legs found. But the transition has to be more gradual than that, one has to find many different fossils showing the gradual transition, not just one. These have yet to be found to this very day. Here is an example that also shows some flaws that the survival of the fittest theory also doesn't proove evolution. [QUOTE][IMG]http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_in20questions/25B.jpg[/IMG] INTERESTING SPINES: Hallucigenia: One of the creatures that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many other Cambrian fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures should have such an effective defense system when there were no predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to explain these spines in terms of natural selection.[/QUOTE]And the theory that humans evolved from apes also has flaws in it. Skeletons have been found of [B]humans[/B] that were as old as those of the so ape like creatures evolutionists think are our ancestors. Why would it suddenly appear out of no where like that if we evolved from apes might I ask? I'm not here to convert people, but I see so much evidence in my religion that God exists. He states things in the Quran that people would not have known back then, over 1400 years ago. God states that he created everything in pairs, such as sexual pairs and "that which you may not know of". Anything in particular come to mind? He also states that he "placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them". It was also not known back then that mountains kept the ground beneath them from moving. He also states that "he has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through."(Qur'an, 55:19-20) [QUOTE]This property of the seas, that is, that they meet and yet do not intermix, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension," the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them. It is interesting that, during a period when there was little knowledge of physics, and of surface tension, or oceanography, this truth was revealed in the Qur'an. There are large waves, strong currents, and tides in the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Mediterranean Sea water enters the Atlantic by Gibraltar. But their temperature, salinity, and densities do not change, because of the barrier that separates them.[/QUOTE]These are only a few of the many scientific facts that are stated in the Quran that were not discovered until recently. Therefore, to say that religion has no "evidence" and "backup" to prove it is a lie.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Here are my nominees so far: [B]What is it?[/B] Otaku Lounge [B]Why was it nifty?[/B] Many quality topics have risen, and although members can get pretty "hostile" to eachother in the debate threads, it's great having a place to express your opinions and the reasons you support your ideas. The Otaku Lounge is a place with no limits (except the board rules of course). [B]What is it? [/B] Dagger IX1 [Member] [B]Why was it nifty?[/B] I like how Dagger tries to save certain threads from turning into spam fests. If someone makes a thread that won't lead to too much discussion, I noticed that Dagger sets a good example by making quality posts in reply to it, rather than simply closing the thread. *More will be added soon.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Secondly, they already have shown how mutations can be good. How do you think genetic research is done? We give bacteria, an organism, a gene that codes for antibiotic formation. Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDR Tuberculosis) arose from continuous mutation and information exchange. Both in the artificial and natural sense, it has been shown how mutations can be good. [/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]First of all I'd like to point out that gene splicing is different than mutation. Scientists have decoded the human genome, so they would know where to find a defective gene. They could splice a working gene and put it in it's place. If a good mutation does happen to occur, it's never actually changed the species. The tubercolosis you mentioned did not change into another pathogen. It simply remained as tubercolosis. Some of us are more resistent to pathogens than others. Even if those with no resistance are wiped out, we still remain human. Another thing I would like to point out is this: The law of entropy states that as things are let on their own, they tend to spontaneously move to more and more dis-ordered states, or a higher entropy as you would call it. Organisms however, are highly ordered systems, therefore energy would be required to keep them from become more disordered. How could the first cells have spontaneously, by chance, fromed on their own when they obvviously can't due to the law of entropy? They can't do this spontaneously; this reaction will never happen unless some sort of interference occurs. That's something to think about. [QUOTE][I]It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell. Not only could the cell, the smallest unit of life, never have come about by chance in the primitive and uncontrolled conditions in the early days of the Earth, as evolutionists would have us believe, it cannot even be synthesized in the most advanced laboratories of the twentieth century. Amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins that make up the living cell, cannot of themselves build such organelles in the cell as mitochondria, ribosomes, cell membranes, or the endoplasmic reticulum, let alone a whole cell. For this reason, the claim that evolution brought about the first cell by chance remains the product of a fantasy based entirely on imagination. The living cell, which still harbours many secrets that have not been explained, is one of the major difficulties facing the theory of evolution. [/I] [B]-Harun Yahya[/B][/QUOTE] [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]You are missing a key point of Darwinism. Change arises from [B]random mutations[/B]. This is the focal point of Darwinism that made him so controversial, and yet so scientifically sound. Random mutation leaves no leeway for the idea that God had any involvement in the creation of man, and so the only kind of belief in God you can have is "Man created God."[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]Just because one believes in God, that doesn't mean we completely ignore science. We know how DNA works and we know that mutations occur in DNA. The controversial part is how the heck can a mutation be good? How can it give rise to a new species? Sure's it's possible, but what chance does it have of occuring. No scientists have come up with a mutation that is favourable to an organism. They zap them with radiation and even play around with the genes, yet they can only come up with flies that have legs for antenae. Another thing is that species are so different from each other. How did organs like eyes and ear come about gradually? If they had a single part missing from them they would fail to function, making them useless, they cannot evolve gradually over time because they have to use a creature. Having a non funtioning eye is no better than having no eye at all. Therefore, natural selection would not favour that specific wierd creature with parts of an eye that don't work. [quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']Only if dogs evolved into dolphins, lol.[/quote]Yeah I know what you mean, there's no proof that dogs came from dolphins or anything, just a possibility according to the evolution theory. What I mean is that if we all came from one ancestor where are these wierd transitional forms that made the evolution into different species possible, whatever they may be? [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Only 55% of the US population believes in Darwinism, and most around here have an ill-concieved notion that Darwinism can somehow coincide with their religious beliefs. What you are thinking of, Chabichou, is either Intelligent Design or Nomogenesis. I personally prescribe to the former.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]Even if you do believe in God, you could still believe in evolution in some way. We could for instance beileve that God created us, and then other animals have evolved over time or something like that. But let's just look at the theory from a scientific point of view. I'm sure even some athiests disagree with this specific theory. I do believe in a way that evolution can make a species more adaptable to their environment, but I don't believe that it can give rise to new species. For instance their is a theory that dogs evolved from dolphins. Darwin states that small changes in a species appear over lots of time and this is what gives rise to new species. If this is true, shouldn't there have been fossils found of strange half dogs/dolphins?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]What do Otakus think of Darwinism (the theory of evolution)? I personally see many [URL=http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted2.php]flaws in this theory[/URL] and therefore don't believe that all living creatures evolved from one ancestor, and if they did, then there must have been some sort of intelligence behind its mechanisms. Anyway, here are some suggested readings: [URL=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html]The Origin of Species[/URL] [URL=http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/]Darwins Theory of Evolution[/URL] [URL=http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted1.php]Darwinism Refuted[/URL] [URL=http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php]The Evolution Deciet[/URL] [URL=http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php#q1]The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions[/URL][/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Do proverbs count too? Well, here goes: [I]An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep. [/I] -Arabic Proverb [I]Examine what is said, not him who speaks.[/I] -Arabic Proverb [I]He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does not ask remains a fool forever.[/I] -Chinese Proverb [I]Wait until it is night before saying that is has been a fine day.[/I] -French Proverb [I]Arrogance diminishes wisdom.[/I] -Arabic Proverb [I]A chain is no stronger than its weakest link[/I] -Latin Proverb [I]A single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundle.[/I] -Japanese Proverb [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]The character, minus the sttire you mentioned seems to resemble Bardock's female friend, Celipa, also called Faschia in the english version. [url]http://anime.myfavoritegames.com/dragonball-z/Images/Bios/F/Faschia.gif[/url][/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Drix D'Zanth']That?s ********. A country?s only duty is to her own citizens (pardon the reflexive pronoun) not to protect the citizens of other nations. What the U.S. gives is out of GENEROSITY and should be received as generosity. Just as what the aid from any other nation should be understood as. When is it our responsibility to make the lives of every other nation as good as ours? That?s those people, and their nation?s responsibilities. I know that sounds cruel, but many nations are DOING that, and bettering themselves. Look at India, they take decent care of themselves, they haven?t asked for aid yet. [/quote]I'm not saying that it's our responsibility to make the lives of other nations as good as ours, because most people living in western countries obviously have more than they need to simply live a decent life. Do we need a T.V? No. Do we need a computer? No. But we have all those things and take them for granted. I do agree that people should work hard to to try to make their own lives better. For instance, if a guy is living off welfare, and refuses to find a job, then it shouldn't be the country's duty to help him. However, some people in the world, no matter how hard they try, they cannot make their lives better. They physically work harder than us and even suffer, and continue to live in poverty. That's when I think we should step in and help. [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Since when was Spain, who doesn?t have the soundest economy in the world, need to throw money at the country? Like I said, the amount of money sent is virtually meaningless until we can actually SPEND that money on manpower and reconstruction.[/quote]I just see interest as evil, but that's just my opinion. They definitely did give a generous amount, and it is understandable that they might need the money back. But I don't think it's right to use people's suffering as a way to make money. [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The UN sanctions? You are blaming the death of Iraqis living under Saddam because of UN sanctions? Please, go read something, go learn about what the sanctions dealt with; how they didn?t change the way of life for the Iraqi citizen, or how the entire suffering of the nation was really Saddam?s fault (which it was). Please, go educate yourself before posting again.[/quote]I'm pretty [I]educated[/I] thank you very much. I wasn't saying that Saddam wasn't responsible for making his people suffer. I don't support him and I'm glad he is out of power. That's what I think is the only good thing that came out of the America's invasion of Iraq. Anyway, all I am saying is that the sanctions simply furthered the suffering of the Iraqi people. Saddam did not make people starve as much as he killed those who opposed him. Sanctions destroy the economy of a country. You're isolated, you can't but or sell anything. How could Iraq get the money neccesary for healthcare, if they can't even sell their oil? Maybe [I]you[/I] should educate yourself on the harm sanctions can really do. [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the 1920?s, the stock market crash (would?ve been nice if countries gave us a few hundred million to slow the recession), 9/11, the war in Afganistan, Iraq (not a unilateral operation). There?s a few examples.[/quote]The first few example you gave were before the U.N was even formed. Weren't all countries back then selfish and hostile to each other? As for 9/11, their was lots of aid sent to the victims, form communities and orginizations. America didn't need money to rebuild the buildings destroyed. As for your wars, we don't want to take part in them. Canada sent peacekeepers to afganistan, and other countries have sent troops to iraq. You don't need money. It was America's choice to engage in these wars, so they must take the responsibility to provide for them. No one on the other hand, brings tsunamis upon their countries. [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I?d like to see a source to that number, Cabichou? maybe Google?s not cutting it today. The U.S. has given aid to Israel and will continue to do so. It is possible that the aid we have given them has assisted in Israel?s ability to survive despite the hostile actions of all of her neighbors. Not only that, the continued fighting against Islamic terrorists will and must continue.[/quote] [QUOTE][I]For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies?true lies. Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.[/I][/QUOTE] Okay, so 16 million a day gives you that 5 and a half billion a year. It you don't believe that fine. But the U.S in it's Washington report says it gives 3 billion a year to Israel, fine. That equals to $8,219,178 a day. Sources: [url]http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#lies[/url] [url]http://www.ifamericansknew.com/stats/usaid.html[/url] [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I love how the first sentence of this paragraph contradicts nearly your entire post. The U.S. isn?t arrogant in giving money away, nor stingy. I?m just sick of the nation where it cannot win in any situation; if it doesn?t give what the rest of the world considers enough we?re ?stingy? if we give too much we?re ?arrogant? and if we kept to ourselves, well I can see us being called any number of things from that (tyrannical, uncaring, etc).[/quote]Okay, I'd like to clear up the fact that I don't think the U.S needs to give more. I was simply stating the reasons why countries would call you stingy. I personally don't care how much America gives. It's not my country so meh. If I was living in one of the countries devestated by the tsunami, then I would be very grateful for any help I recieve. What I'm worried about is how much my own country can give and how much I can do to help. So pretty much I was saying what my opinion on the subjet would be If I was American, since this thread deals with American foreign affairs. And I agree with you on one thing; just sending money over to the country isn't going to do anything unless it is turned into results, such as reconstruction. But still, when we say we need to give more, it's more so that there is enough for reconstruction. [QUOTE=Baron Samedi]Two things I'd just like to point out, but I can't be bothered quoting. Someone said that the US had only donated $35 million: Well, thats the old figure. It is now $350 million. Someone else said that nobody would be giving more money than the US. Japan donated $500 million towards the effort.[/QUOTE]Sorry, I honestly quoted from a reputable source, CTV news. The date was Dec. 30 so that's pretty recent. :confused: The article had said that Canada was bumping up to 40 million rather than the 4 million it was going to give in the first place. [url]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1104355151375_99764351?s_name=&no_ads=[/url] I guess America was gonna give 35 million and then it bumped it up like Canada did. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]No offence, but I think some of you Americans are being a little bit egotistical about your country. If your country has wealth, then it is your [I]duty[/I] to help other countries in need. I even think Canada could have given more, even while it is not as rich and powerful as the U.S. However, note that Canada gave more than the U.S, which is what I think makes people question the U.S. The U.S however, isn't the only one people should be pointing fingers at and calling stingy. Spain had the nerve to give a loan, which is to be paid back with [I] interest[/I]. [I]That's[/I] what I call stingy. I'm not sure about the countries hit by the tsunami, but some countries in this world are poor simply because of the sanctions imposed on them by other countries, especially the U.S. Though these sanctions are sometimes neccesary in times of war, they needn't be placed on a country when the war is over. When Iraq gave up in the gulf war, the U.S imposed sanctions on the country. Did Saddam suffer? No, he continued living a life of luxury, while the general Iraqi population suffered and thousands (or even millions) died from disease and malnutrition. I think the U.S should definitely take responsiblity for the desicions it makes. [quote name='Morpheus']It's a little bit different. We were the ONLY ones going to pay for Florida. When was the last time we got aid from another country?[/quote]Since when did the U.S need foreign assistance? I think if a country owns over half of the world's whealth, it should be able to manage itself. Another thing, not meaning to drag another Israel debate in here, but the U.S gives Israel around 16 million dollars a day. If America can do that for one foreign country, which by the way is not in need of so much assistance, then it really ought to focus on other countries which are more in much need of that money. The U.S has given 35 million so far in light of the tsunami crisis, which is just a bit over what it gives to Israel in a two day period. Finally, I'd like to point out that no country is really in the place to point fingers at others telling them they should donate more money. Then again, you shouldn't brag about how much your country helps others. It's not right to remind people of the favours you do for them. You help other countries because it is the right thing to do, and it is an [I]obligation[/I]. Yes, it is an obligation for [I]everyone[/I] to help those in need, regardless of how far they are from you. If you are capable of helping, then help.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I know what you mean, but I didn't mean that homosexuality is as bad as rape, or even close to it. For instance, a man raping a little girl is just as bad as man raping a little boy. Whether you hurt a male or female doesn't matter because in this situation the crime is rape. God loves people who at least try to follow the right path that he has layed out for human kind. When you purposely disobey God's commands and don't even seek forgiveness for it, and even state that what you're doing is accepable, you are clearly defiling God's laws, and even rejecting him. Why should he love you then? God created Adam, and because Adam was lonely, God created a companian for him. Someone who he can share his love with. And that was the first woman, Eve. God created [I]women[/I] as the partners of men, and it angers him greatly that men would actually ignore their natural partners and turn to other men. Honestl people, if you actually [B]read[/B] your holy books, you will see how angry it makes God when people commit homosexual acts.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Hmmmm... let me think.... 1. Money! Lot's and lots of money! For of all I would use it to help all those poor hungry, homeless and sick people in third world countries. I want to put an end of famine, and make sure everyne has enough money to live a healthy and happy life. Then I would use the rest to buy all the material stuff I want such as the best darn computer ever, all the supplies for crafts I enjoy doing, a new house, etc. 2. I have a tendancy to lose things. So I wish to be able to know the location of anything. Even if it is thousands of miles away. 3. I'd wish for all kinds of supernatural powers like flying and invisibility and being able to suvive in any enviroment throught body shields and manipulating time and.....[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]And again, it's not wrong to be a homosexual, it's wrong to commit homosexual acts. I'm pretty sure that's Xander Harris' stance on the topic as well.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]Yes, I agree with that. Some people just get these homosexual thoughts and are tempted to try them. From a religious point of view, if one has these thoughts, God won't punish them if they control their desires and stop themselves from commiting homosexual acts. Some people have grown desensitized to violence from being exposed to it all the time. Some people might even have a desire to kill people and actually take pleasure from it. Maybe they are even born with the desire to kill, but that doesn't make it okay to kill people. Some people enjoy child pornogrphy, and they specifically target children as sexual objects, and even rape them at times. But even if a person is sexually attracted to children, it doesn't make it okay to approach children in such a manner. Even if the child is willing, it's still innapropriate and unhealthy. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I honestly see homosexuality as a perversion that should be avoided. And there are many other types of sexual perversions in addition to homosexuality, such as orgies, threesome sexual acts, rape, pornography and prostitiution. All of these are harmful to the people involved and society in general. It's understandable that people can get these desires, but they should not act on them.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I personally think that homosexuality and bisexuality is wrong, but it's not like I insult these people or hate them or anything. Here are a few reasons I think homosexuality/bisexuality is wrong: When you look at it from either a religious or non religious point of view, homosexuality/bisexuality is unnatural. Animals do not engage in homosexuality (and please people, worms do not count), and if they do, then there is something wrong with them. Afterall, one of an organisms goals in life (intentional or not) is to reproduce is it not? Homosexuality is an obvious barrier when it comes to reproduction. Homosexuality affects the interaction between males and females, females with other females, and males with other males. For instance, public washrooms are seperate for males and females because of our sexual differences and to respect our sexual privacy. Guys definitely wouldn't appreciate it if girls were with them in the washroom while the are using a urinal right? Then shouldn't it be wrong and disrespectful if somebody gay was in there while other guys are urinating, since he is sexuality attracted to other guys? If girls are changing in a change room, wouldn't it be wrong for a lesbian to be in there, since she is sexually attracted to other girls? Afterall, a guy would definitely not be allowed in there. Here's another example: I'm muslim, so I wear the veil when in the presence of men other than my brothers, my father, uncles, and my grandfather. But I don't have to wear it around other girls. What to I do when in the presence of a lesbian, and let's say I didn't even know she was? Assume that I'm in a public washroom, so I have removed my veil simply to fix my messy hair. Think about it people.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]My mom is a very careful driver and she makes sure to follow all the rules. I hate it when people are too impatient (even though mom's driving at the speed limit), and twist around us in odd and very dangerous ways and then flash us the finger as a parting gift. I feel like flashing it back, but my mom stops me, probably out of fear of being attacked by those jerks though, lol. About a week ago, my mom was driving me home after my late night exam and this freak comes out of nowhere and almost hits us as he makes a very rapid U-turn, his tires screeching like mad, not to mention the fact that U-turns in my province are not allowed, at least on that type of road. He almost hit two kids walking on the sidewalk as well. I think he was mad at them for some reason, and was trying to scare them. They looked scared out of their minds, so I think he accomplished his mission. Then, he drove off and screeched around a corner. I was confused why he kept on driving in such a dangerous way, and even thought he might start "attacking" others. Luckiliy, when my mom and I got back to our complex, there was a police officer there, so we reported the incident. I wasn't sure if that was a case of road rage, or just very inconsiderate and dangerous driving. Anyway, once my mother an I went to the mall and there were two guys fighting and swearign at ech other over a parking spot. I thought it was dispicable how the one who started the row had a daughter with him in his car. The poor girl looked really upset and embarrassed at her father's actions and foul language. I must commend him for setting such an excellent example for his child.:therock:[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]You forgot New Yorkers (especially the ones who live in the Catskill mountains and around Ft. Drum which is where the Army does cold weather training and us Western New Yorkers), People in Colorado, Those people in INdiana who were stuck in their vehicles for 3 days and oh I don't know Midwesteners and The Swedish. It snowed about a foot here Wednesday, then it melted on Thursday. today it's cold out, but no snow. Go figure.[/color][/QUOTE]Yeah, have to agree with you there. Heck, I even live near the border! Deroit is just a 4 hour drive away.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Hey, stop that! I didn't say everyone can go on and guess my religion out of the blue! I was just clarifying that I wasn't Christian like [STRIKE]everyone[/STRIKE] most believe. It's even more curious why the second religion of choice for me is Islam, what with me seeming to be Christian first. I'm not saying you are wrong, though (but neither am I saying you are right). :p[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]Coincidence isn't it though, that two people had the same guess huh? Makes ya think doesn't it? :smirk: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH![/COLOR]