Retribution

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson']War is an art form. It takes skill to take violence; refine it, control it and direct it to achieve a victory. More people should learn to appreciate it instead of constantly (and mindlessly) condemning every facet of it.[/color][/quote] [size=1]It does take skill to do all of that, but I think the reason war is condemned is because of the loss of life it results in. War takes skill, but it's not a beautiful thing. It's not something displayed in a museum, or enjoyed by the masses. This is why people don't appreciate it -- civilians are slaughtered, people are killed, families are displaced.[/size]

[size=1][color=teal](lotsa spam deleted) -Syk3[/color][/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]Actually, Tical, I like your avatar. It's perfect, except you don't have a border, which REALLY bugs me. However, I really appreciate the re-coloring of Shugo. Therefore, you get a [b]8.5/10[/b]. Props, yo.[/size]

[size=1]Well, it's been white a while -- nearly five months since the last word from the Club. I thought about it for a while, and I decided that I really should start this back up. Please see my first post to find more specific information about the GFX Club. Also, [b]White[/b] and [b]SunfallE[/b] have joined the community and are elligible for battles, so welcome them! However, with the GFX Club, I want to get back into [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?p=673390#post673390][B]Graphics Class[/B][/url], where people can pick up new tricks, or ask the Club questions. I have a few lessons planned, and I intend on posting them sometime tonight. In other news, I won the Official OtakuBoards Graphic Tournament, and I'd also like to extend a huge thanks to all the wonderful participants. I'd say the first annual OBGT was great. I can't wait to do it again. On this note, please remember that the GFX Club is also a battling community, and that you can find further information about Graphic-battling other Club members in my first post. So welcome back to the Club! Feel free to ask questions here![/size]

[size=1]Yes, I'm aware of the fact that the US didn't enter WWII for the greater good -- we entered because of Pearl Harbor. However, the Holocaust was not completely unknown to the top military brass, only the citizens. I think exhausting all avenues for peace is when the aggressor is not open for diplomacy, when they begin to take military action against others, when their war machine is staring you in the eye and it's not blinking. I am not certain of when exactly it was just to declare war on Hitler, as there are significant shades of gray in this equation, but I think it should have been done sooner. Perhaps when Germany looked like they were not open for discussion on the matter of counquering Europe? It is true that 'justice' in determining when to enter a war can be blurred, but I think that the occasion does indeed exist.[/size]

[size=1]My favorites were the very first one, and the other picture with "CRIME" being eaten. Elvis' shading is also great -- very soft and realistic. There are a few that I assume were done from an earlier time where the subject matter is simplified, but those are still pretty good as far as drawings go. So keep up the good work! Sorry if I couldn't give you any real critique, but I just couldn't figure out anything that was wrong with these. You've nearly mastered shading, as far as I can tell. Are you in art school now? :3[/size]

[size=1]Sorry for not commenting any sooner. I really enjoy this -- the pose, the subject matter (Go Naruto!), and the great execution of it all. I really think you've done a superb job on this, however, I think there are regions where you over-shaded (both Naruto and Sakura's hair), but those are minor errors. You've done an excellent job on Sakura's hair, despite the shading, as I can see it looping around Naruto's arm... very nice touch. Great work! Post more![/size]

[quote name='Raya][COLOR=#7B075B']As for just wars, nope, I never believed that such things existed. The word "just" performs exactly as a big red bow on a really crappy present; it's an ineffectual attempt on titivating the word "war." Besides, I've yet to hear of a war that wasn't waged out of paranoia, greed or vanity.[/COLOR][/quote] [size=1]Was entering Kosovo justified? Or should we have sat back and watched the genocide unfold, pleading and praying for a peaceful solution? Was Allied retaliation justified in WWII, or should Europe have pleaded with Hitler, asking for diplomacy, while millions of jews were slaughtered? Yes, the spark to war usually is greed, vanity, or hate, but the response to it isn't necessarily.[/size]

[size=1]I will only reply to the first part of your argument, as the rest is straying away from what exactly the Second Amendment says. I think I've addressed the rest of your points, and we're just not going to agree, so at a certain point, you just have to call it quits and pack up. [quote name='Anime Elf']We still need a militia. Have you ever heard of the generational theory on war? Basically, it states that every generation has a war, and depending on the deathcount, who won, and what was gotten approximately determines when the next war will happen in a 15-30 year span. Given that this theory has proven true for the most part (just look at a timeline of all the wars in American history with the three factors), we will always need a militia. Since the military consists of private citizens who volunteer (for the most part), why not have them prepared before they even start basic training?[/quote] I missed the part about why we need[ed] a militia. You're saying that there's a war every 15-30 years, which I don't know one way or the other about it, factually speaking, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this "generational theory on war." So there's a war every so often. This is why we have a military (NOT the same as militia). They are volunteers, yes, but that doesn't make it a militia. What makes our military a military is that there is extended organization to our Armed Forces -- soldiers go to Basic, go fight a war, are part of a Chain of Command, recieve income for fighting. Why not have them prepared before they even start basic training? Because someone younger than 18 doesn't need to be training in the Arts of War before then, anyway. You'd be teaching a minor how to kill another human being, which I find quite disturbing in general, let alone to teach to a minor. They don't need to be prepared before Basic training because the military takes regular civilians and prepares them to be part of the world's best trained military. Prior experience or no, they are prepared to do battle efficiently and effectively. There's no reason for people to have prior experience with weaponry before Basic. The homicide rate, the necessity of guns for on-the-street protection, those are all side effects, relatively inconsequential to the main issue here.[/size]

[size=1]I plan on this thread being a relatively short and sweet one, but I?d like to pose a question. Does pacifism actually work in the real world, or is it too idealistic? Do you believe there is such thing as a ?just war?? I was having this debate with my Ethics teacher, and while my views are pretty sturdy on this issue, I?d still like to hear what OBers have to say about it. Before we dive into the talks, though, you should know what I mean by [I]pacifism[/I] and [I]just war[/I]. Pacifism is ?the belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully,? while just war is the belief that while peaceful situations should be sought out first and foremost, war is just in certain cases (WWII, Kosovo, etc). My personal belief is that war can be just, and that pacifism does not work. Pacifism is the refusal to accept human nature as a combatant one. I also believe that if you have the power to stop a wrongdoing, you should exercise that power for the greater good. For example, you see a child being beaten up by bullies ? I think most people would try to tell them to stop (the attempt at a peaceful solution), and when they fail to stop, I think attacking the bullies would be just. Watching the child being beaten to a pulp, and pleading with the bullies to stop would have no result. Furthermore, standing between the child and the bully would have no effect ? the bully would have no reason to stop their attack. So, give me your reasons! Don?t feel bound to the two terms I tossed out in the beginning, though. I look forward to responses.[/size]

[size=1]I, for the record, thought that the [b]Rocky Horror Picture Show[/b] was the absolute biggest piece of trash ever to hit a screen. The lack of plot and all out absurdity gave me a big "WTF" look throughout the entire thing. Don't waste your time on this one.[/size]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]If any of you have been keeping up with middle-eastern news, you'd know that Ariel Sharon has suffered a stroke and very possibly some brain damage, putting him out of commision. He probably can't come back to power. I do not want to start an Isreal/Palestine debate here, but the reality is that palestinians do want an independant state at least. Do you think Sharon's being out of power will hinder the creation of a Palestinian state? Or was he an obstacle to begin with? Do you think Sharon's ill health is a good thing or bad thing?[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [size=1]I know you're not a fan of him, but Sharon has been making strides towards peace -- without him or another strong leader in his stead, the area will degenerate into its former chaos. He was a good man. I doubt a Palestinian state will be created because of his death. Palestinians may [i]want[/i] one, but Israel is not dishing it out from her borders. I would assume that anyone serving in Sharon's stead would have the same vision as he, and thusly would continue with his work.[/size]

[size=1]I don't see any links in your original or current post. Maybe you forgot to add them in on your last update? [B]EDIT:[/B] The pictures just took a while to load up, nevermind. However, your pictures, specifically the last one, look like they were stretched out of their original proportion. Did you modify them in an image editing program, or is it just drawn like that?[/size]

[size=1]I like the ideas and general execution of these, and there's only a few comments I'm going to leave. Firstly, I think you look too washed out ... I know it was the intent to make you look stark white, but I think it's a bit overexaggerated in this. You lost features and detail in doing this. Next, the contrast of your hair (specifically the second picture) makes it look over-sharpened, perhaps even grainy. Good ideas -- I'd say they're original with the special Annie flair. Keep it up.[/size]

[QUOTE=renayiiq]I cannot speak as freely as someone of minority can. Did you know that because I am white, if I applied for a job, and a person of racial minority applied for the same job, and we both had the same skills, they'd get the job because people feel sorry for them? Don't act as if white people get everything. In reality, we don't. Don't even try to play the race card on me, saying that I have all this power because I'm white. That's pure ********.[/QUOTE] [size=1]This might be due to the two hundred plus years of racism, there is a sensitivity to political correctness in America. Only in the last forty years have minorities had even close to an equal opportunity in this country. This is why your employer is picking minorities over you. And yes, you do have more power in the country, generally speaking. If you and a [i]black[/i] woman both ran for office, you'd probably get elected, statistically speaking. There's still racism in America.[/size]

[quote name='Anime Elf']The law is hardly outdated. The 3/5 compromise was just something to have the Constitution ratified, back when slaves weren't considered people , but property. And the Convention didn't even want democracy for fear of the uneducated, non-elite majority taking control, much less give women the right to vote. America was already in a fragile state when the Consitution was being drafted, and the members were trying to get along, even though not everyone in the convention signed it. But back on track, yeah shootings are easy, but back before guns were so widespread, people carried knives with them, so mess with the wrong person and they'll kill you with a knife. More messy, a little more complicated, but still a relatively simplistic way to kill, and it was very common, and would probably gain prominence once again if guns were outlawed for citizens. I know that people kill each other for rather pointless reasons. Stabbing still kills.[/quote] [size=1]You?re right ? the Constitution was drafted during a critical period of America. We needed arms and a ?well regulated militia? to ensure the safety of the country. Every state had their own militia that served only within the state?s borders. The Second Amendment was put in place to ensure the safety of fledgling America. Unless you?re ready to serve in the militia, there?s no reason for the Second. Before guns were so widespread, the homicide rate of America wasn?t as high as it is now. Besides, how many homicides are enacted with knives, and compare that to those with guns. Your point is really stretching it here ? I don?t really agree that if guns were taken away, the homicide would still be as high. Take Japan, or the UK. I?m absolutely certain that their homicide rate is much, much lower than the States?. People will at least [I]try[/I] to kill other people all the time. The degree of their success relies on the potency of the available weapons, however, and if guns are outlawed, death won?t be a finger-twitch away. [quote]About the American Revolution, it was hardly just about quatering soldiers, right to bear arms, or tea taxes. The American Revolution was a culmination of a series of events happening in American and Britian. Whether or not the colonists right to arms was infringed or not would have had little to no effect on whether the Revolution would have happened or not. Also, it is still citizens who make up our military. I personally know of people who were and are in the armed forces, and most of them own at least one weapon that they keep at home for emergencies and what not. Even though they might not be part of the military anymore, they still have a weapon, is that wrong then?[/quote] I beg to differ on your first point. Had America not had the right to bear arms, there would have been no way to fight Britain ? the world?s best-trained military of the time. Yes, there was severe unrest for quite some time ? nearly fifty years prior to the Declaration of Independence, but there would have been nothing more than rioting in the streets, had people not owned guns. There would have been no Revolution without weaponry. Yes, the citizens make up the military, but this is almost entirely irrelevant. Yes, I?m sure they own weaponry at home, and I think that for servicemen and women, it should be allowed, as they have proven they are trustworthy of bearing the responsibility that comes with a weapon. In short, they are less prone to killing a man on the street in a fit of rage. I don?t have a problem with that ? I have a problem with the people who shoot others for stepping on their shoe, for looking at their girlfriend the wrong way, for insulting them. If those people did not exist, there would be no reason to have this debate, as my argument would have no grounds. [quote]Bearing arms doesn't mean you'll go kill a person. Most people have it tucked away in a drawer or safe or something. The view here seems to be that if you have a gun you [U][B]will[/B][/U] go out and kill somebody. That's hardly the case. A slim minority of gun owners actually shoot someone else, much less kill them.[/quote] I recognize the fact that only a small percentage of people will actually go out and shoot someone on the street, however, that small percentage is still enough to heavily impact America. However, there?s no real point to having a right to bearing arms. Seriously, why would you [I]need[/I] one? To go to the shooting-range? Maybe to go hunting? There?s no point to it ? the fact of the matter is that you should be bearing arms if you are prepared to become part of a well-regulated militia, and I?m sure that at least 90% of gun-owners wouldn?t want to do that. [quote]As for the UK, yes they might have similar philosophies and a similar lifestyle, but if you look at the (stereo)typical American compared with anyone else, chances are the American will be more independent and self driven, self-focus and motivated, and not really wanting to take anything from anybody." The American mentality is truely unique, and taking away the right to bear arms is not something most Americans will like. And taking away the right doesn't mean it won't be done. 98% of Americans have, are doing, or will use at least one illegal substance. Even though they are illegal, look at how many people break that law. And people don't always just get their highs from using drugs.[/quote] Yeah, yeah, the American mentality is unique, but the general principle of what I said has nothing to do with a ?unique? mentality. It has to do with basic cracking down on guns. True, Americans wouldn?t want to respect that authority, but if the government is doing it, what will they do? They might not [I]want[/I] to give up their Second Amendment rights, but they [I]must[/I] if the Federal Government demands it. The second part of this, I really have no idea what your point is. Something about how 100% of people won?t follow the law. Yes, you?re right ? not everyone will follow the law, however if even 98% of people do, there will be a significant reduction in crime. The police would be able to confiscate weapons over time as well. If there?s no great input into the system, the illegally weaponry will taper off over time. I think you were saying something along the lines of ?Even if you do confiscate the guns, people won?t obey.? Is that any reason not to do the right thing? ?Even if you do desegregate, people won?t obey.? Is that any reason not to do the right thing? We should at least start towards change. [quote]People won't stop killing each other if we take away the Second Amendment.[/quote] Wrong. Look at Japan. The UK. Our homicide rate is exponentially higher than both of theirs ? hell, both of theirs combined. [quote]But since guns apparently hurt people, and we can carry them, let's just take that amendment away. Hmm, let's also take away that one about repealing prohibition, because drunk drivers kill and not to mention drunken brawls that may lead to some serious injury, or maybe even death. What about that first one? Some one might verbally abuse me or maybe someone else's religion doesn't agree with mine. Hey, freedom of religion is fine when practically all the founders are the same religion, right? To bad they're all dead and the times have changed. Oh, and the press lies. We should shut that down right now. It's okay when the press was controlled by the elite, but now it's controlled by numerous people, elite and not elite. That first one is a little outdated, it should go.[/quote] Are you kidding me? Your comparisons are laughable. Drunk drivers and drunken brawls combined don?t kill as many as bullets, not nearly as many. Freedom of Speech is legal because that in and of itself won?t kill anyone. Your next argument against Freedom of Religion is foolish. I said the Second Amendment is outdated because it serves no modern purpose, and you tried to say the same for the First. The First Amendment serves a wonderful modern purpose. Without it, African Americans would not have won equality forty years ago. Without it, non-Christians would not be tolerated. Without guns? Well, the homicide rate would be lower. The press lies. Sometimes. It serves a practical modern day purpose, as you can see without my having to point it out to you. The First Amendment is valid in this day and age, whereas the Second is not. The militia has not be employed it ? what? Two hundred years? [quote]Amendments are meant to adapt to the times, not to be changed by or completely removed just because we live in aren't the same has 215+ years ago. Why carry guns? Well, just exercising my right to. Why not drive a BMW or a Cadillac or a Mercedes if I can afford to? But then again, boo on that. It might cause class conflict. We should all ride the bus, because no one is better than another if they all ride the bus.[/quote] Your comparisons are faulty at best. You carry a gun because you can, and tried to justify that by saying that you can drive a BMW or a Cadillac because you can. Carrying a gun can potentially result in death. Driving a BMW versus Cadillac will not result in death. I also don?t understand your comparison between carrying a gun versus not carrying, and driving different kinds of cars meaning you?re better than someone else driving different car. Carrying a gun has nothing to do with being better or causing class imbalance. Neither does driving a car. [quote]As you can probably tell by now, I think that getting rid of the citizen's right to own and carry a gun is pretty ridiculous. Yeah, that right gets abused, but so do a lot of other rights, but we don't go around (seriously) saying to get rid of free speech or the press. Aside from the fact it wouldn't pass, it wouldn't stop the killings going on today. And while it could be argued that it would reduce homicide, there's no way to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't like guns, don't carry them. Don't try to remove them from the rest of the people who actually use them responsibly.[/QUOTE] The right to freedom of speech rarely, if ever, results in death, whereas the right to wear a tool that can cause a human being death will. I also think it silly that if you look at the homicide statistics of America versus other countries that cannot carry guns, you will see a huge correlation. Maybe that?ll clue you into the fact that [b]guns can and do cause a huge amount of death in the United States annually.[/b] It?s too bad that the responsible people have to have their right taken away, but it?s for the greater good, and there?s no real point to having one anyone.[/size]

[QUOTE=Anime Elf]Okay, it was the intent of the founding fathers to allow citizens to bear arms, and of course interpretation of the law is all that matters now. And remember, back then the militia was whoever volunteered. There was no draft, just normal people who would fight for their country. Now, keeping that in mind: Of course virtually any court will agree that we are allowed to bear arms, and that if murder was the intent of someone, having the right to bear arms wouldn't matter so much, a way would be found to murder the person. Now for the quotes from the dead of the time.[/QUOTE] [size=1]You must think [I]why[/I] the militia existed. What was the militia?s function? Back in 1776, the militia was used to rebel from Britain (the government) due to the fact that they imposed unjust laws upon the Colonists. The citizenry fought against an imposing, oppressive government because they had the right to bear arms. Had their right to bear arms been infringed upon, the American Revolution would never have happened. [b]This[/b] reason is why the Second Amendment exists today. The Founding Fathers wanted future generations to have the ability to overthrow the oppressive government, and as a result, they provided the future generations with the ability to do so. This isn?t the right to shoot a bear whenever you?d like, or carry your gun on your hip because you don?t ?feel safe.? The right to bear arms is in place solely because the Founding Fathers thought that we should have the ability to overthrow the unjust government. This means that if you bear arms, you don?t do so to protect yourself from a criminal or go kill game because you find it fun. You bear arms to potentially overthrow the American Federal Government, that in case the government becomes overly unjust, the People can and will revolt against the government, just as we did three hundred or so years ago. However, America has the most effective military in the world. I say with certainty that the citizenry would not [b]ever[/b] be able to revolt and overthrow the government in the state that it?s in now. There?d be scattered resistance across the country, and theoretically, the Armed Forces could just order air strikes at those pockets. There?s no possible way for the citizens to overthrow the government at this point. This is why the Second Amendment is as outdated as ?Women aren?t allowed to vote,? or ?African Americans are 3/5ths of a person.? [quote]Using Japan, while it might seem relevant and an indicator of what America could become, isn't. The main point is culture. The two cultures are different, the priority of self over the society. Maybe it is seen as safer to not own guns in Japan, so they are more willing to embrace that. Here in the US of A, there is a mentality more towards "Who cares about society? It's better for me to own a gun, so bring on the guns!" And, as I'm sure many of you will agree with, not everything in one culture is good for another. If we're upset about imposing our culture and beliefs on others, how much worse to have other's imposed onto us?[/quote] Alright, take the UK. To my knowledge, they do not have the right to bear arms as Americans do, yet they are also a Western nation, and share many of our philosophies. Is a man born and raised in the UK all that different from a man born and raised in the US? Would they not value the self over society? It?s not a cultural thing here, that guns cause death, and people can?t be trusted with them. [QUOTE]Not to sound cliche, but people kill people, guns don't kill people. If I really wanted to kill someone, I could use a pen, a book, a knife, a plastic bag, martial arts, etc. A gun is just one of many things to use. Guns aren't just there to shoot people with. Lot's of people hunt and I'm sure that many people carry guns in their cars. I mean, if there's a gunrack on the back of your truck, I'm sure that a gun is nearby. It seems as if most people assume that if you have a gun, you'll kill someone. Look at how many people actually own a gun compared with how many people actually decide to murder someone with it. I'll guantee it's not a 1:1 ratio, that's for sure.[/QUOTE] Yes, you could use many other things to kill a person, however, as Raiyuu stated, it is much harder to do so. Besides, a few miles from here in South East DC, people get shot weekly, and I?m certain that these people would not go to great lengths to kill. It?s a ?He looked at my girl,? or ?He stepped on my shoe? (I?m not kidding). Would you really stab someone to death with a pen for that? Probably not. It?d most likely result in a relatively harmless fist-fight. However, when guns are added to the equation, there is no time to diffuse the situation. Rather, people escalate too quickly, and decide to kill the other person ? not because they really deserve it, but because they are overcome in a fit of rage, and they can most easily harm the opponent with a gun. Those with guns kill more often than those without. There?s been about 150 homicides in DC this year ALONE due to guns. I can count on one had the deaths due to other methods of attack. I?m tired of the killing, and it can be easily stopped, however people hell-bent on keeping their outdated rights cling onto the Second. [QUOTE]It's a constitutional right to bear arms. The last time an amendment tried to take away a rather common "right" so to speak, another was passed to fix the error (prohibition --> reversing it).[/QUOTE] Yeah, we also took away the part in the Constitution about how African Americans are worth 3/5ths of a person. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren?t holy things ? they can and are [I]meant to[/I] be modifiable to change [I]with the times[/I].[/size]

[quote name='Panda']Of course you would fail to see what is beautiful about that quote when you put words in my post that I did not say or imply. I never said or implied that I think it's beautiful to see a child beaten up or someone to fail a test. It's actually very disappointing that you would think I think hurting others or seeing other in pain is a beautiful thing. That is very sad to think someone would find seeing other hurt is a good thing.[/quote][size=1]Perhaps I read into things too far, but from what you typed above, I drew a conclusion. Trust me, I was just as confused by it as you were. Very sorry to have misinterpreted -- I wasn't trying to make you sound vicious, but please understand what I read when I saw your post. [QUOTE]You are obviously not a TMBG fan either or you would know what their music is like. "Strike a chord" is a pun. You know, musical chord? This is a quote from a song. Striking a chord is to make a noise, a note if you will. Its a pun. I also like how it reminds me that I am not alone. Thus, striking a chord with me. This song also mentioned "wake up and smell the cat food in your bank account". Are you now going to imply that I put cat food in my bank account since I quoted that? The song is about reality checks.[/QUOTE] I understood what "strik[ing] a chord" is ... I was puzzled as to know why it struck [i]your[/i] chords. What you said was rather puzzling, so I was wondering why you identified with it. I know you cannot deposit cat food in a bank account, so I would've known that wasn't literal. But please, check over the quote you posted. To an outsider taking this quote out of context, you have to understand and forgive me. [QUOTE]I am frustrated and sad that my quote would be used against me to imply I am some masochistic person. I use that quote as a reminder that even though things in my life have gone bad that I am not alone in feeling frustrated and sad. We all feel that way in some aspect of our lives. You might think my quote is masochistic but, to me, it gives me strength to carry on and consider what others around me are going though. This is the way I interpret the quote and I'll stick with it as one of my favorites since it keeps me grounded.[/QUOTE] I am sorry that I misinterpreted your quote so horridly. However, I don't understand how you consider "[B]Everybody[/B] [[B]dying[/B]] [B]frustrated and sad[/B] [...] [B]is beautiful[/B]." I beg of your forgiveness, sincerely, but please understand where I'm coming from when I say that I still don't see your point.[/size]

[size=1]I fail to see how feeling frustrated and sad when you die is beautiful. That sounds somewhat masochistic, and on the whole rather odd that you find being frustrating or sad a beautiful thing. Do you consider it beautiful when someone is crying because they failed a test? Or do you think it's beautiful when a child is beaten up, and feels angry afterwards? I don't get it, how that quote would 'strike a chord' with you. [i]Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."[/i] This quote gives me chills to this day when I hear recordings of Churchill saying it. The first time I heard it, I wanted to take up arms and defend Britain... and I've never even been there. It's become a very important quote to me. Daily, I am reminded that billions die and are forgotten, and that few are ever mentioned after they die. I want to do something so great that men will still remember my name when I die. Don't mistake that for a lust for power -- rather, I'd like to do something worthy of rememberance.[/size]

[size=1]I dunno, high school seems relatively boring, painful at times, fun at others. I won't go all angsty on you or anything -- I mean, I enjoy most of my classes. Drawing, Photography, AP US History, Ethics, Creative Writing, and AP English III are great classes -- I enjoy them alot. If I could take only those classes, I think I wouldn't want to come home. However, it's the two classes, AP Physics and Honors Pre-Calculus, that really wipe me out. Those classes are so stressful, that they make me say "Alright, where's college?" The constant grind isn't all that enjoyable, and as of now, I really do wish I could get to college where I get to pick things that are more interesting. But looking back at it all, I get nostalgic. I only have a year and a half left of high school (I'm a Junior), and all the times I can remember with my friends are all really great. I think it'll end too soon, and I'll look back in ten years, and give anything to live a week back in these days. For that reason, I try to enjoy the good times, know that they make it all worth it, and enjoy things while they last.[/size]

[quote name='Anime Elf'] To say this is of Civil Rights magnitude is a bit much. I think that we as Americans should worry morry about discriminating on people based on how they look first and how they act second.[/quote] [size=1]Eh, I agree and disagree with your first statement. Yes, you?re right ? gays are getting lynched or killed because they try to illegally get married. It certainly can be seen as a bit much to compare it to the Civil Rights Movement. However, I do feel that injustice should not be belittled, that this compromise in human dignity is somehow less important than the other. I feel that gay marriage/civil union should be given to gays, not denied the right to transfer property or belongings to their husband/wife when they die. [quote]There will always be discrimination. People are still racist, people still don't like women in politics, people don't like the poor, people don't like stupid people voting, etc. There will always be people with a certain mindset, and there is no feasible way that everyone will accept everyone else. Plain and simple. You can make everyone the same (looks, financially, mentally, athletically, etc.) and people will still find ways to be better than the rest, and inevitably put people down in the process. That's the nature of us humans.[/quote] You?re right ? not everyone will be accepting of others. But does that make the discrimination against gays any better or more justified? Should we still not work for justice, if you so believe that it is injustice? [quote]Most of the gay people I know are really annoying about gay marriage. I'm not saying everyone is, but especially during the vote to make gay marriage (il)legal, there were people asking me to vote, and they would get mad if I said I wouldn't. I would tell them I was underage (which is true), but half of the time they wouldn't believe me and started ranting about how that makes me a homophobe (notice the word phobia, that's a ridiculous and loaded term in itself) and how I'm trying to "keep them down" and "I hope you have a gay kid" or "I hope you become gay" and all this ridiculous stuff that kind of surprised me. For people preaching tolerance and equality, they sure were quick to attack someone who hadn't done anything to them. And while I will again reiterate that I know this isn't how all gay people are, not every gay person came up to me to ask me to vote, so I know I got the fanatics.[/quote] If you got the fanatics, and you know that all gays aren?t like this, then why mention it? I was told to convert by all sorts of religious zealots ? Jehovah?s Witnesses, Hindus, Catholics ? I don?t hate any of them because of it, heck, I don?t even bring it up in conversation when speaking specifically about these groups. I know that they?re not a good representation of their religions. [quote]I have a quick question about the Church. If gay marriage is legalized, what if a church won't perform a ceremony because they don't believe in gay marriage? Will the State have to interfere and tell the Church what they can and cannot do or preach? Will the couple have to find another church? Will there be any conflict between Church and State or will nothing happen at all (the latter seems highly unlikely).[/quote] The State cannot force the Church to change doctrine/beliefs, as there is a [theoretical] separation of Church and State. If the church won?t perform the ceremony, then the church will not recognize the gay couple?s marriage. The couple technically doesn?t [I]have[/I] to do anything as far as their church goes, but they might want to. The point is that most gays understand that a marriage within the church is nigh impossible, and so they are fighting for marriage/civil union recognized by the state. Really, a marriage within the church is foolish to fight for ? if you don?t like the rules of the church, then leave. I don?t thing there?ll be friction. Gays are mostly fighting for [at this point] civil union, which would not shatter anyone?s conception of what ?marriage? is, as it?s not a marriage. The church is irrelevant in the matter, as it is a fight over the benefits of marriage for gays, not God?s recognition of them as a couple. [quote]Oh, and even if some legislation does get passed, whichever side "loses" will just go to the courts and try to get the law overturned and they'll try to go to the Supreme Court or try to use their interest group funded politicians to do something about it. Which is worse, trying to get gay marriage legalized/outlawed or what happens afterwards?[/quote] You could have made the same argument about desegregation in the sixties. What would happen if African Americans got to eat in the same area as a white person. Complete anarchy! What foolishness! Look at us now. Yes, there will always be a period of turbulence, perhaps even murders and hate crimes. These radical actions are always associated with large societal change. It happened forty years ago, and it probably will happen when (not if) gay marriage/union is made legal. But should this threat of violence and hate deter the future? King marched in the face of dogs and fire hoses, nightsticks and fists. Had he feared the aftermath of his actions, I would not attend the school I do, I would not have the friends I have ? the world would not be the same. [quote]How far would redefining marriage go anyway? Could I have four wives? Could I marry my sister or brother? I love them. Or my cousins. I love them too. Or how about them all? Could I join along in some currently existing marriage, I mean, as long as I love both people involved? How about my car. I love my car.[/quote] I think you know you?re being pretty silly at this point. The State probably could make polygamy legal if the People wanted it. Of course this can redefine marriage. However, I don?t think the American people will legalize polygamy, and incest hurts the children, so I don?t think that?s ever getting passed. Marriage isn?t set in stone. It?s created so that the couple gets benefits for living together and having children. They get to see each other in the hospital, and their belongings are passed onto their spouse. Let?s grow up and stop pondering if you could marry your car. [quote]While I know you guys are like, you're crazy, this is America we're talking about and crazy things will happen. And if the law is written so that marriage is only between two men, two women, or and man and a woman, some people will complain. "Why not more than one?" or "Why not my toaster (first thing that came to mind)?" Gay marriage goes far beyond a same sex couple who loves each other and wants to spend the rest of their lives with each other. I wish it was that easy, but it's not.[/quote] Polygamy? Who am I to say ?That?s sinful!? to? You will never be able to marry non-humans, let alone inanimate objects. You jumped from two women/men to a toaster. Seriously, you don?t think that?s a bit absurd? Don?t you see my point here? How does gay marriage go ?far beyond? two same-gendered people who love one another and wish to spend their lives together? You just summed it up pretty well right there. I have faith that if we can draft an entire Constitution, we can come up with rational terms for civil unions. You keep bringing up marrying toasters and dogs and your cousin or what have you. Yes, you might be able to marry them if Congress let it pass. That requires the majority to think that?s a valid cause for marriage. Last time I checked, no one thinks that marrying a toaster is valid. Be real here, the bill would be laughed out of Washington. [quote]Oh, and homosexual terms as demeaning words. This is gonna sound mean and some people won't want to hear it, but get thicker skin. Like I said before, there's always going to be discrimination, and we need to learn to deal. Not everyone will like you. People will hate you. Not even because you're gay. Maybe you have green eyes or brown hair or you're rich or you're popular or something. They might call you something mean. Learn to deal. The world isn't utopia, and we can't make it, no matter how hard we try. Just go away. Remove yourself from whoever's spewing out whatever you don't want to hear. If you can't, just don't listen. No one's forcing you to listen to people berate you. It's that simple. Get a little tougher and/or just go away.[/quote] I?m sure you?d be angry if someone called you a [spoiler]n.igger[/spoiler] on the street. I?m sure that you?d also be angry if they told you to go pick some cotton and eat a piece of fried chicken. But get thicker skin, negro, and move back to Africa where you came from. [[Note: I?m not racist, only making a point. I?m African American too.]] You?re somewhat right ? people shouldn?t really dwell upon what others have to say about them as far as senseless berating. However, that doesn?t mean we should accept the fact that people hate gays and move on ? shouldn?t we try as a community to stop that kind of hate? I don?t think it?s fair that gays are discriminated against, and I think it should stop. That?s why I don?t join in on the laughs when someone?s called a ?***.?[/size]

[size=1]Well, I read 48 of 55 pages last night, and from what I've read, I'd say that it's pretty good. I actually felt depressed after reading the main character's view of the world, so that means you did a good job. While I disagree with his view of the world, he certainly has a point, that if you step away from all the religion, you'll see that we're the same as a monkey. I'm sure there's all sorts of deep things in this book - metaphors, parallels that can be drawn between real life and the story's message, but I don't really want to go into it. I think it's just better to enjoy, rather than actively explain things. PS: Your writing style made those 48 pages pass rather quickly. Once again, excellent job.[/size]

[size=1]I don't think people understand that the Constitution says that we have the right to bear arms to MAINTAIN A MILITIA. Not for personal on-the-street protection. Not for guarding your home for a robber. This is why I don't see any room for debate. If you disarm guns, yes, people will still have them, but after a few years, they'll disappear. Take Japan, for example. They're not allowed to have guns, and people don't obtain them through the black market -- they have a very low homicide rate (so I understand). What's the difference between us and them? I say that if we ban guns, the same thing will happen. Yeah, it'll take decades, but in the long-run, it's safer for everyone.[/size]

[size=1]At first glance, it's bland. And upon closer observation, they're undynamic -- they lack a focal point, the font is detached. The brush effect is good, but I think you might've overused it on this. The brush effect can enhance art, but I don't think it can carry it completely as you've tried to do here. The colors are nice and calming, but they're no fun to look at. The predictable patterns you've arranged them in don't draw my attention much either. I really hope I wasn't overly harsh on this ... I don't think I gave a single positive comment, which is strange, even for me. Don't shoot me, Mr. White. ;_;[/size]

[size=1]I'm a little confused as to how such a designer-friendly request would be passed by like this. I guess it's better late than never, though. [IMG]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/retri_trib/Ayokanoava.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/retri_trib/Ayokano.jpg[/IMG][/size]

[size=1]I think Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is beautiful, and I think Fix You by Coldplay is ranking in at number two.[/size]