Xander Harris

[QUOTE=Methuselah][COLOR=Green][SIZE=1] I'm glad people here have better opinions than those who I've asked in school. Most just flat out disagree with abortion and believe it should be made illegal with no reasons given, I'm happy to see that members here support their arguments.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I don't understand how anyone can go along with abortion. You are taking human life. In the case of rape, I fail to understand how two wrongs make a right. Murder is one of those things that all people, in all places, intrinsically know is wrong. And of course a women has a right to do with her body what she wishes. But it's not her body we're talking about, now, is it. Abortion is a disgusting practice, and the rationalization of it that people attempt is disgusting as well.

Lol, HC. I think she read your name in my sig and got it mixed up with my screen name... Anyhow, on topic, I really don't care how you started the thread in order to color people's opinions. You provided a link to an article, and from my reading of the article, the people in the survey are not advocating beatings of muslims, or concentration camps, or anything of that sort. Mainly it seems to be talking about profiling and other minor civil liberties infringements. And you use a 'slippery slope' arguement when you talk about registration. I had to register with the government for military service when I turned 18. Is that part of a secret conspiracy to start a new draft in Bush's second term, or part of a plot to kill all 18 year olds? Registration was used prior to the holocaust, yes. So what? That has little to no bearing on this discussion. Why don't you polk around and see if you can find any legitimate surveys that show fifty percent of Americans in favor of genocide against Muslims. I'm sure you won't find any. And what precisely are you trying to prove with this inane thread, anyhow? I'm not even sure what I'm arguing against, other than that 715 people is not an adequate enough sampling of Americans to rule that we're all genocidal racists.

Quite frankly, I don't see what the big deal is about racial profiling. If the enemy you are looking for belongs mainly to one ethnic group, then it makes sense to give a little extra attention to people of that ethnic group. I'm talking about legal investigative stuff, like at airports. I'm certainly not advocating Muslims get locked up without a lawyer, or get beat to death or whatever. But it seems to me that profiling makes basic, rational sense, so long as it does not become persecution. If the cops were looking for people in the KKK, I wouldn't think it was wrong that they investigate me over a black man. It's the same thing with terrorism.

O.k. Moving on to the next thread....

Annie, I feel sorry for you, because of your experience with the fundamentalist. Fundamentalists tick me off, and their attitude toward our Catholic brothers and sisters is appalling. However, this girl clearly does not understand her own religion. Christianity teaches that you must be 'saved', correct, but being saved is only the beginning. If you really understand the depth of what Christ did for you and have devoted your life to Him, you will begin to live according to his laws in gratitude and joy. If you are a Christian, you should not go kill an innocent child and justify it by saying 'oh, well, I'm saved so I can do whatever I want'. This is not the message of the Bible or the Christian religion. You say you attend a Catholic Church? Go talk to your priest. The Catholics have a very strong belief in the idea that 'faith without works is dead.' Another thing this girl exhibits is pride. "I'm so great because I chose Christ". The Bible comes down strongly against this as well. It is "By Grace you are saved, not by works so that no one may boast." The exact relationship between grace and works is a complicated theological issue that I really don't have the time to get into here, but the basic principle is simple. God acted out in love toward the world, by being incarnated as a man and dying for our sins. He has acted in your life (whether you believe in predestination or not... another complicated theological discussion) to bring you the good news. Now that you have eternal life, you are given the holy spirit, and you do good works in gratitude for the incredible gift Christ has given you. Good works are a result of grace, not vice versa. That's the basic Christian gospel, in a nutshell. I am convicted, while typing this, just how much I need a savior, and how much further I have to go in my sanctification, when I think of times when I myself have used grace to justify sin. Here's a verse you might find interesting: [Quote=Romans 5 and 6] Peace and Joy 1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a]have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we[b] rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we[c] also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. 6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned? 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin? 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. Slaves to Righteousness 15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey?whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. 19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to everincreasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[b] Christ Jesus our Lord. [/Quote] A saying I've developed over the course of this year, as I hear other stories like yours and listen to the works of Tony Campolo (who would totally agree with you on the missions thing... go surf for some of his sermons. I think you would really like them), is that the evangelical Church (not homosexuals, as some folks would have you think ;) ) is often the devil's greatest tool in America. I would love to talk to you more through PM or IM, if you'd like Annie. Send me a wire if you're interested. My prayers are with you in your struggles, James Bierly

Yes, I have a feeling this movie could be the best Batman since the origional film. As to why a new origin film is the best way to go, the following is the best explanation for why DC characters seem to work best in their origin stories, whereas Marvel heroes do not that I have seen: Full link: [url]http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=tbt&article=2014[/url] Excerpt: CASEY: I think your thoughts on the late 30's superheroes being created mainly as a reaction is right on the money. Superman. Batman. Wonder Woman. The "icons" of the DC that have endured pretty much intact since Day One were all borne of some sort of chemical and/or emotional reaction to the world of that time. Personally, I don't think any character at Marvel or DC has achieved the mythology or the iconic power of those three superheroes. For most people, those three are DC. This, of course, brings me to my theory... and I've only come to this conclusion from whatever experience I've had actually writing these *************. Spending three and a half years of my life writing Superman stories month-in, month-out was a hell of an experience. Thrilling, but frustrating at the same time. It was only after I'd completed my run that this revelation hit me... something that I'd probably been subconsciously struggling with during my entire tenure on the character. Conversely, as I've taken a step back into the Marvel Universe to write some of their superheroes again, this little theory of mine has gained momentum. DC has icons. Marvel has characters. And there's a huge difference. You can tell pretty much any story you want with a character. An icon basically has one story... their origin story. An icon allows for a myth. The best myths have beginnings, middles and endings. The only story that Superman really works in is his origin story: Alien baby sent to Earth. Raised by pure-hearted farmers. Discovers his true heritage. Moves to the big city. Becomes Superman (in other words, embraces his true heritage and puts that knowledge into action). As far as I'm concerned, once he puts on the cape and the tights, we've got our happy ending and the story is over. The myth is complete. Sure, you could throw in a few battles with his greatest enemies, but that stuff is just icing on the cake. And, as we all know, too much icing can make a person puke. I mean, just ask yourself this... why does SMALLVILLE work as a series while LOIS & CLARK -- kinda' pathetic to begin with -- limped along to cancellation? Meanwhile, look at the Marvel characters. Their origins are only the beginning of their adventures, which can seemingly last forever, if properly watchdogged. Look at the SPIDER-MAN and X-MEN movie sequels... both of them were way better than their predecessors (which, for the most part, were origin stories). Meanwhile, every subsequent SUPERMAN movie sequel got worse and worse. Even the BATMAN franchise... they've gone back to tell the only story that's worth telling at this point: his origin. On the other hand, Marvel's most popular character of the past 30 years -- Wolverine -- works best when you don't know his origin.

Protestant Christian. Reformed. I seem to remember the last time a thread like this came up it did not end well...

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][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][/QUOTE] On a more serious note, I was a bit surprised to find out her age. Methuselah writes in quite an intelligent and mature way for one so young.

I'm 19. I origionally joined for the Adventure square and the now defunct battle boards. I wasn't much of an anime fan at the time, but I've actually found that I've become more of an anime fan since going to college, which I guess makes me a bit of an anomoly around here. I know a lot of other people in college who are big anime/manga fans, and it starts to rub off on you after awhile. The theatre department recently had a big Cowboy Bebop party. Have you ever noticed that Anime tends to get funnier with each additional person you have watching it? Try plugging in Love Hina with 6 other guys in the room sometime, and you'll be surprised how much more hilarious it suddenly becomes... As far as not having time for message boards, I think I have more time for them at college, since we've got a faster internet connection down there and I have a computer in my room. I find message boards to be a great stress reliever. I get to write stuff but not worry about making it marketable. Viva message boards! The following is entirely a personal theory, take it for what it's worth. I think the reason why there are more anime fans in the 11-15 age group and to a lesser extent the 15-20 age group is that we are the first generation in America to experience the mainstreaming of anime. Back in the day, there wasn't much anime you could see on network TV. But in the past decade, we've had Pokemon, digimon (which I admit I get a kick out of... digimon is a fun show), DBZ and yu-gi-oh become immensely popular. Kids watch those, and get acclimated to the anime style of storytelling. When they are ready to 'graduate' to more mature anime, there is good stuff readily available on Cartoon Network, and more at their local Suncoast or Best Buy. Back in the day, you had to find a specialty store to get most anime. Nowadays, it's a bit easier, and there is a lot of anime targeted at kids. Hence, a generally younger demographic.

[QUOTE=Inuyasha7271]After hearing this about this show I might get me a job at Suncoast that why when I buy Love Hina, Detective Conan, Full Metal Alchemist, Cowboy Beebop, Trigun, and Rurouni Kenshin DVDs from there I will get a discount anyone else know any other dvdds I should get. Also what is the diffrence between Love Hina and Love Hina Again.[/QUOTE] Love Hina Again is the sequal to Love Hina.

I've just watched about 10 episodes in the past 12 hours, and I must say this show is immensely entertaining. It's complete randomness, nonsensical violence, and excellent sense of irony and satire leaves me in stitches, I laugh so hard. I'm surprised, though, by the sudden and random flashes of reality and serious issues that crop up in this show from time to time. Whenever it gets too serious, though, one of the gals finds a new way to whoop up on poor Keitaro lol. Gotta love the turtle and the wise old men. I think the dude is gonna end up with Naru, but I could also see it ending with him finding the girl he made the promise to. The animation is also quite good, taking full advantage of the ways for showing emotion unique to anime and reveling in the physics of the cartoon universe.

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] Actually, in a scientic study, children who grow up in families of gay parents are no more likely to become gay themselves or to have an odd lifestyle. They'll probably get teased a lot, but so does everyone. Perhaps it will teach them to love more unconditionally and to become more open-minded about things. [/color][/QUOTE] Actually, there really aren't enough studies or children to study in order to prove conclusively that homosexual parents do/do not effect the children adversly. Both sides have some studies with a very small group of subjects which 'prove' their side is correct.

[QUOTE=Altron]Everyone, [b]stop quoting the Bible[/b]. It's people like who you are blind to other people's points of view and opinions. For all you know, the person reading your post couldn't care less about the Bible, it's message, or it's meaning to the argument. It's just another book. Sure, I'm a Christian, too, but we live in AMERICA. And in AMERICA, we get to practice whatever religion we want, so don't bring religion into this debate, please. 'Immorality' is complete garbage, since we do plenty of immoral things every day, but no one lifts a brow or points a finger at. In this country, we aren't allowed to discriminate against people on their race, gender, [b]creed[/b], religion, etc. Meaning, we shouldn't be allowed to amend the ****in Constitution with a *** amendment, that contradicts it! Soo... in conclusion, don't flash your religious beliefs just to get an amendment passed, because other people don't share your view, so why are you allowed to cram it down someones throat?[/QUOTE] Um, last I checked the purpose of this thread was to ascertain people's opinions on homosexuality. NEWSFLASH: People's religion's color their opinions! What a shocking idea, that one of the core elements of your personhood should effect your opinions!!! See my thread on censorship in california. Like it or not, religion is part of life. Deal with it.

Your wish is my command, Domon ^_^ BTW, will Luther be involved in this in some capacity? Name: Victor Von Doom Alter Ego: Victor Von Doom Powers and Abilities: Doctor Doom is one of the world's foremost masters of super-science. His only real rival is Reed Richards in this department. He has devices that can send someone through time, create pocket dimensions, and even channel cosmic rays. [IMG]http://supermantv.net/wallpaperbattles/supermandoom.jpg[/IMG] One of Doom's most powerful assets is his small nation of Latvaria, his personal security forces and spy network, his personal fortune, and his legions of doombots. Doom also wears a battlesuit of technological armor decked out with weapons, devices and sensors. Victor is also skilled in the occult disciplines. A sorceror by nature, Doom combines magic with technology to make himself one of the most powerful people on the face of the planet. [IMG]http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~pindor/pics/doctor-doom.jpg[/IMG] History: Victor Von Doom was born to Werner Von Doom, a gypsy healer, and Cynthia Von Doom, an accused witch. While a child both of Doom's parents died under strange circumstances, and Doom vowed to make the entire world pay for the loss of his beloved parents. As a young man, Doom discovered a chest, left to him by his mother, which contained herbs, medicines, and objects said to have mystic powers. During this time, Doom began developing his powerful scientific abilities. For several years, Doom traveled the countryside peddling clever devices and potions to the gullible. The Dean of Science at State University in the United States learned of Doom's extensive knowledge and offered him a full scholarship. There, Doom met Reed Richards, another brilliant science student who became Doom's intense rival. Doom conducted an experiment to free Doom's mother's soul from Mephisto, but the experiment blew up and left Doom's face scarred. Reed had warned Victor of miscalculations, but Doom ignored Reed. Doom bitterly blames Reed for the scarring of his face. Doom left the University and traveled to Tibet where he studied Oriental sorcery with a sect of monks. Doom soon became their master, and the monks assisted Doom in creating a suit of armor and a metal mask. As the armored Dr. Doom, he planned to conquer the world. In an urgent rush to begin his quest for world domination, Doom donned Doom's new mask before it had completely cooled, thereby disfiguring Doom's entire face. Doom left Tibet and returned to Latveria where Doom toppled the existing monarchy and established himself as emperor. Over the years he has clashed repeatedly with Reed Richards and The Fantastic Four, as well as just about every other marvel hero. (and a fair sampling of DC heroes during crossover stories as well) Despite repeated 'deaths', Doom seems to always come back. [IMG]http://www.cybercombatclub.com/assets_mangas_fantasy_anime_divx/images_mangas_anime_heroic_fantasy_folder/mugen_comics_x_men_characters_doctor_doom_marvels2.gif[/IMG] Personality: Doom considers himself to be a good leader of his people, although a stern disciplinarian (men have been killed for looking at him the wrong way). His people, in general, like Doom. He gives them order, and power in the world. He is driven and obsessive, as well as brilliant. Doom desires control, power and mastery above all else. Doom is given to bouts of depression, and is a complete egomaniac. Doom is supremely confident in his own abilities to overcome any challenge, and his force of will has prevailed over powerful demonic beings, cosmic entities, and on occasion even superheroes. [IMG]http://tm.wc.ask.com/r?t=c&s=p&id=30752&sv=za5cb0de6&uid=0036AAFD7B0EA7214&sid=1E8CA495CB205FB14&p=%2fimagetop&o=0&u=http://www.iespana.es/auladecomic/galerias/comicgal/comicthumbs2/Dr_doom_thumb.jpg[/IMG] Now, Doom has assembled some of the most dangerous and nefarious personalities on the planet to aid him in eliminating those who would stand in his way. Make no mistake, Doom only views his allies as pawns in a much greater struggle, nothing more. Should this campaign be successful, Doom shall reign supreme over all mankind.

[QUOTE=James][color=#811C3A]Primarily, I'm just glad that this trial is over as a result of the insane media coverage of it. I can't help but wonder how many other things have gone uncovered due to this trial. Anyway, I don't really care much about the verdict, except to say that I don't think death is harsh enough. It's painless and the easy way out. I'd rather have him rot in prison for his entire life, with everything that it brings (ie: the violence and other things). At least that'd give him a taste of what he did to his poor wife and son.[/color][/QUOTE] Yep. I personally really never cared much about this trial. I wished that justice would be done, but other than that I felt the media spent an incredibly disproportionate amount of time on one story. Why? Simple answer. It was entertaining, and boosted ratings. Reporters would gleefully relish every complication. Many, many people die from murder every year, and they don't get to be the central news story of the year. This was a terrible act which the media turned into a circus. They should be ashamed. Something I find interesting about this whole case is the level of outrage expressed over the death of the unborn child (it's second degree murder), but many of these same shocked people would be in favor of abortion. Does that make any logical sense? Either killing an unborn child is second degree murder or it's not, in my opinion. You can't have it both ways.

[quote name='EVA Unit 100'] People, ever heard of sensible compromise?[/quote] In America nowadays? Shurely you jest :p

I usually come here about once or twice a day. I tend to just read the lounge and music,movies, and T.V. section, but I check out the Arena about once a week. I think I'll be spending a bit more time in the Anime sections, since I'm seeing some more anime lately.

Don't have the album (although I'm seriously considering getting it), but the songs I've heard from it on the radio please me greatly...

Seems there are hardly ever any scientific debates here... figured I'd try to start one. There's gotta be some science nerds lurking around here someplace... Do you believe that humanity will ever find a way to create faster-than-light spaceships? Einstein says 'no', but some disagree. NASA has recently begun a ten-year study (I think they're in the second year now) to look into the possibility. So, what do you think? Can E=MC^2 ever be overcome? I personally think that if some kind of hyperspace travel could be developed, this would be possible.

[QUOTE=Altron] And yes, I've heard people say things are Jewish. I want to clock them, mainly because the people who say this only do it because others are too. They probably don't recognize they are saying something a Nazi would. Most people who say "That's jewish" or "Don't be a jew" wouldnt've survived the Nazi holocaust. Idiots these days.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's a slang term I find quite offensive. I understand most people saying it aren't meaning it as a racial slur, just as an expression, but I still don't like people to say it. And no, I'm not Jewish. ;)

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]]I know I said I was leaving this discussion, but I figured I'd leave these stats. We'll see which side is more guilty...... [url]http://btselem.org/English/Statistics/Al_Aqsa_Fatalities_Tables.asp[/url] [url]http://btselem.org/English/Obstructing_Medical_Treatment/Testimonies.asp[/url] Hey, this site is totally unbiased. It's in hebrew annd arabic and english. Just presenting the facts. :) [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Yeah, Israel is not without fault in this conflict. I just heard a presentation in speech class about the Israel situation... I'm gonna have to write something up about how Christian Zionism is an unbiblical load of horse manure in MyO one of these days... not really appropriate for this thread, though, methinks.

Siren posited this question in another thread... I think it has some discussion value to it, so I've decided to make a thread dedicated to it. Do you believe the whole world can live at peace? Why or why not?

[quote name='Siren']Have I ever been focusing on whether there is a green pen here? No, I have not. I've been focusing on a specific worldview and how the slant and emotional predisposition weakens the credibility of said worldview.[/quote] It's called a hypothetical example. Of course I was not talking about a green pen. Substitute in an idea or worldview of your choice (i.e. God exists) in place of the green pen. [quote name='Siren'] I quote J.S. Mill, "The uncultivated cannot be competent judges of cultivation."[/quote] Let's assume for a moment that this is true, and apply it to the OB. Who is the judge of cultivation, you? [quote name='Siren'] If you have someone who has a twisted or less than a firm grasp of what a situation is, how can you expect them to offer any reasonable input, and how can you expect to treat their input as having a reasonable and substantial basis? I don't think you can, honestly, and I think you actually need to evaluate that 4,000 years a bit more closely, because Freud wasn't the weirdo that many people try to color him as.[/quote] How can you conclude that all their input is necessarily wrong? Go back to my green pen analogy. Simply because someone is crazy does not mean their ideas are wrong. Certainly it can color your interpretation of what they have to say. Certainly you should take what they say with a grain of salt. But you must also provide a REASON why their argument is wrong, beyond "well, you're mentally unstable!" If you cannot provide a logical reason why their argument is wrong beyond this, then you have not conclusively proved that they are wrong, and have not won the argument (Note that we have, for argumentative purposes, taken the ad hominem to it's extreme, by talking about crazy people. I don't think anyone on these boards is insane) Freud's ideas would be very useful for determining if someone is mentally ill. Since we've already concluded that this fictional person is mentally unstable, Freud really has little bearing on this discussion. Certainly you aren't saying that a mentally unstable person is incapable of perceiving anything true? If that is true, how do they manage to so much as feed themselves? And if they are at the point where they can't even do that, then the odds they will be engaging in philosophical discussion to begin with are just about zero.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Siren]Come to think of it, if Freud is widely hailed as the father of modern psychology, and his theories about the Id, Superego, and Ego, and dreams and so forth (the subconscious/slant influencing behavior), are being utilized more and more, and finding success as patients are able to overcome their fears and such, I think that punches a major hole in the entire argument against Ad Hominem. Psychoanalysis is no joke, lol. [/QUOTE] All these theories deal with why people believe what they believe and why they think and act the way that they do. This has little to nothing to do with whether or not what they believe is true. For instance, I may believe that the Earth is round. I may have been told this by a lunatic, a less than credible source. The fact that I am unjustified in my belief that the Earth is round, since I have faulty evidence, does not change the fact that the Earth is round. [quote name='Siren'] Can the entire world live in peace? Just a simple question. I'd be interested to hear what your answer is. ~_^[/quote] My answer is that world peace is not logically impossible, but it is at the moment causally prohibited. Also, this would make a great topic for a thread in the lounge. You should go start one. [quote name='Siren'] [EDIT: No worries about the reply, lol. No harm done. It's all good. My point is that if someone is clearly working off of an unrealistic state of mind, you have to take what they say with a grain of salt, and closely examine what they're saying, and why they're saying it, because chances are...they're not living in something we like to call reality, haha.[/quote] I'm not arguing against that. I'm simply arguing against using psycho-analysis as your SOLE argument against a person. Reading this, I wonder if perhaps we actually agree on this, but are simply coming at it from two different directions and are simply arguing over terminology. Am I right? Ja Mata, James Bierly

[QUOTE=Siren]Dagger, I understand your point, and I do see where you're coming from, but you would be quite surprised just how much psychology (and the human psyche) affects life. I'm going to make a bold statement, but I think it holds true universally. Every single opinion, viewpoint, Ideology, worldview, perceptive stance, position, etc, are all strongly, [i]strongly[/i] influenced by the psychological make-up of the individual. There is almost nothing in the world that isn't influenced by psychology...perhaps the hard sciences, but on OB, the psychoanalysis rarely is brought into a discussion concerning the hard sciences, only the soft sciences (or social sciences, depending on what term you use). There's really no getting around the fact that we are driven by our psychological make-ups, and that's why bringing in psychoanalysis is often useful in determining how efficient a worldview is, or how efficient that worldview can ever be. I'll use The Terminator as an example. If you were discussing various thematic elements of the films with someone who absolutely hates the entire Trilogy, you're not going to have a good discussion, and if you don't understand why you're not having a good discussion, then you'll never gain any ground at all. Conversely, if the two discussing Terminator are both fond of the films, or at the very least, appreciative of them, then your discussion is going to be engaging and enlightening. My QT: The Films thread from a while back is yet another example of this. When those involved in the discussion aren't incredibly slanted in one way or another, able to discuss something more or less objectively, the discussion is going to be fantastic (which it was in that QT: The Films ^_^). A person's psychological make-up damn near dictates how that person is going to act, view the world, respond to the world, and talk about the world. If the person wants to see the world as a violent and cruel place, just a soulless machine, their worldview and posts will reflect that desire. If the person wants to escape reality and live in their mind, essentially (Solipsism), their worldview and posts will reflect that desire. In order to respond to those types of posts, you need to be able to realize just what kind of worldview is in play, and what the psychological make-up is that drives that worldview in order to be able to effectively counter both the superficial points and the deeper meanings underneath. Know what I mean?[/QUOTE] No. Psychological makeup has nothing to do with whether or not someone's position is correct. If a delusional man sees a green pen, and says look, a green pen, and you look and see that the pen is indeed green, do you conclude that the pen is not green because the crazy man thought so? Does the mental state of a person color their arguements? Of course. But that has no bearing on whether or not their arguement is true. Truth is something that exists independant of the people talking about it and trying to understand it. From wikipedia.org An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: A makes claim B; there is something objectionable about A, therefore claim B is false. The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Positive arguments to the person are discussed under appeal to authority. Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety. Usage An ad hominem fallacy consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong purely because of something about the person rather than about the argument itself. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect. Conversely, not all ad hominem attacks are insulting. "Paula says it is impossible to murder a man, but this is false because Paula never loses her temper." [edit] Validity Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy. Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments. A committed perjury when he said Q We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed therefore, A 's testimony for Q should be rejected [edit] Subtypes Three traditionally identified varieties include ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque. [edit] Ad hominem abusive Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that--usually, anyway--insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions. An example: "Jack is wrong when he says there is no God because he is a convicted felon." [edit] Ad hominem circumstantial Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. "Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests." The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy. It is important to note that the above argument is not irrational, although it is not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic. [edit] Ad hominem tu quoque Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a claim is dismissed either because it is inconsistent with other claims that the claimant is making or because the claim is about actions the claimant has engaged in, too. "You say airplanes fly because of physics, but this is false because you said earlier airplanes fly because of magic." "You cannot accuse me of libel because what you do is libel as well." The tu quoque form is often a specific kind of the two wrongs make a right fallacy. [edit] Taxonomy The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is often but not necessarily an appeal to emotion. Argumentum ad hominem includes poisoning the well. I'm not saying that the psychological makeup of a person should never be taken into account. Note in the article I've provided that evidence can be doubted on account of a person's mental state. Before I see the green pen for myself, I can doubt that it is green because the person telling me this is crazy. There are occasionally times on the boards where evidence (particuarly in the area of 'personal experiences') can and should be doubted based on what one knows of a person. However, when they provide other evidence and logically valid arguements, one cannot discredit them on the basis of psychology. One needs to instead deal with their arguements. This might have been all you were trying to say, Siren, in which case I apologize in advance. This was not meant solely as a response to you. I think this is a good article for all the people on the boards to see, since fallacious thinking seems to be prevelant lately. Have a good one, James Bierly

If this is going on on school property, then go talk to the principle about it. If it is not on school property, report them to the local police office. Throwing rocks at people so hard they bleed has a name in this country: assault and battery. You don't need to just take it and you don't need to get in a fight. Report them to the proper authorities. By the way, I went through a lot of the same stuff at your age. Your post looks like something I could have written back in the day. It sucks, a lot, I know. But things will get better. Don't commit murder over it, even though, believe me, I understand the desire. There is nothing cowardly about avoiding conflict when possible. Talk to your parents or guardian, talk to the principle, or talk to the police. Oh, and Tim totally kicks butt. ;)