Messages

61

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: A Survey This Is

« on: June 05, 2006, 07:50:46 PM »

There's a great flood story in almost every culture, if that's what you mean.

And this tends to support the idea that there actually was a flood. The story, if it really happened, would have been passed down for generations, changing slightly in certain particulars among various peoples.

62

General Chat / Re: The ANGST thread: Complain here!

« on: June 05, 2006, 07:44:15 PM »

I could also respond to those other arguments about homosexuality if I wanted to (and probably refute at least certain points), but I'm really not enjoying this at all, and again, I'm not going to convince anybody. So I'm just going to stop arguing about it, for now anyway.

63

Game Help / Re: Super Smash Brothers Melee

« on: June 04, 2006, 05:34:40 PM »

I used Roy to beat Event 51, if I recall correctly. I didn't know about how useful Jigglypuff is for that match until after I beat it with Roy.

64

Mario Chat / Re: Do you like the new SMB?

« on: June 04, 2006, 05:26:49 PM »

>I don't even know what the game over screen looks like.  Since the N64 broke out onto store shelves, Nintendo's games have been steadily decreasing in difficulty... and replay value.  With NSMB, I was expecting it to be harder, like the original Super Mario Bros, but I was horribly mistaken.

It probably is easier than some previous Mario games, but the fact that you're better at playing Mario games now than you used to be probably has a lot to do with your perception of its easiness. When I play SMB3 now, I rack up large amounts of 1-ups and never get a Game Over. Also, I'm not sure if Yoshi's Island was released before or after the N64 was, but I never got a Game Over in that game except on purpose (to see what the Game Over screen looked like).

65

General Chat / Re: The ANGST thread: Complain here!

« on: June 04, 2006, 05:17:40 PM »

"Just because it's not normal doesn't automatically make it wrong."

It's not merely abnormal. It's essentially a mockery of the procreative process. This may not seem important to you, but I think I can speak for all traditional-minded people when I say that I consider it a slap in the face of nature.

"Let people act however they want to. Sheesh."

Yeah, sure, let's let people do whatever the heck they want! What does it matter if morality will completely collapse? Self-gratification comes before all! [/obvious sarcasm]

Honestly, if you get angry when people think atheists don't have morals, then you should refrain from saying such audacious things.

"What gives people the right to declare themselves so morally superior as to tell people that what they do is right or wrong? Come on now."

So I guess you can't tell a murderer that what he does is wrong, since you would have no right to declare yourself morally superior over him. Right.

"Homosexuality, while not productive in the way you describe it, is also not counterproductive. Or, at least, it wouldn't be if society weren't so closed-minded about it."

Homosexuality is indeed counterproductive. Have you still not looked at the statistics down below?


I vote that this argument end. It's going nowhere; I can tell that much. If you continue, however, I shall be compelled to do the same.

66

General Chat / Re: The ANGST thread: Complain here!

« on: June 03, 2006, 07:28:53 PM »

What I said was that you appeared to be saying, "Homosexuality is found in nature, among people and among animals. Therefore it is natural." Various types of mental illnesses also occur in nature, among people and among animals. So it would seem that, judging from that particular argument, you would believe that all mental illnesses are natural. My point was that the mere fact that something is in nature and occurs among people and animals doesn't automatically make it not unnatural or "wrong". Note that I'm not talking about moral wrongness in this context (though I do believe homosexuality is morally wrong), but rather about wrongness as in "There's something wrong with him."

Homosexuality, it should be noted, was classified as a mental disorder right up until the time when people decided to rebel against traditional morality (coincidence?). If you don't consider homosexuality a mental disorder, then what do you consider it? A normal condition, just as normal as heterosexuality, never mind the fact that heterosexuality is actually productive?

67

General Chat / Re: The ANGST thread: Complain here!

« on: June 03, 2006, 01:26:39 PM »

I was going to rebute this by pointing out that your argument assumes that ALL inconsistancies in life are wrong (The "no gray area" fallacy that I see a LOT in religious arguments),

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "inconsistencies in life".

68

Game Help / Re: SADXDC Help

« on: June 02, 2006, 11:57:09 AM »

No problem.

69

Game Help / Re: SADXDC Help

« on: June 02, 2006, 11:54:43 AM »

You are supposed to use the pinball machines to earn 400 rings, and then you take the rings to a big room at the side of the Casino and deposit them there. I think an Emerald appears then for you to collect.

Post again if this wasn't enough information.

70

General Chat / Re: The ANGST thread: Complain here!

« on: June 02, 2006, 11:47:27 AM »

It's also possible to argue that it's natural.  I had a homosexual dog.  That's all I'm saying about that, but homosexual behavior in nature has been documented.

Just because some animals have homosexual tendencies doesn't make those tendencies natural. Your argument suggests that any abnormality found in animals, no matter how useless or harmful it is, is "natural" and that therefore there is nothing wrong with it.

That's funny, because, ya know, if it were unnatural, why do people and other organisms display homosexual behavior even if it can't result in reproduction?

Just because things are being used for reasons they weren't "intended" for doesn't automatically make them wrong. Homosexuality is just a slightly more extreme than usual example of this.

So you think that no mental illnesses are "unnatural", then? People certainly display those, and animals do too (like dogs with apparently hereditary aggression problems; my family recently had one like that, I think).

I don't know if you read the later parts of the article, after the "homosexuality is unnatural" section, but there are plenty of reasons to consider homosexuality a bad thing. Just look at the statistics lower down.

Not everything used for reasons it wasn't intended for is wrong, but the area of human sexuality is different from other areas, since the natural purpose of sex is to create new human life. Therefore, it is a far more important matter than, say, what tools should be used for what purposes in fixing a car. But of course, if you don't consider human life sacred, I don't know if I can argue this with you.



Sorry to hear about that, neotev.

71

General Chat / Re: The ANGST thread: Complain here!

« on: June 01, 2006, 08:59:13 PM »

The Fundies.

And they only answer to GOD, so they're obviously correct. And if you disagree with them, you're going to hell.

OBVIOUSLY.

</blatant sarcasm>

It's possible to argue against homosexuality from a purely rational point of view, you know. :P

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/homosexualuc.htm#Anchor9

72

General Chat / Re: A poll for men only?

« on: June 01, 2006, 08:52:26 PM »

Oddly enough, I remember that poem. 0_o

73

Latest News / Re: E3 2006: Smash Bros. Brawl

« on: May 29, 2006, 08:38:03 PM »

I'm getting concerned about the Zero Suit Samus character. The more images I see of her, the more she looks like some kind of "sex object", especially when you think of what one of the camera angles in the trailer was like. (Then again, though, it's likely that a certain jerk on KRR, who has an obviously dirty mind, contributed much to my concern about that camera angle.)

74

Latest News / Wii's Japanese Price Announced

« on: May 25, 2006, 08:50:36 PM »

I certainly hope this hasn't been posted on TMK already. I haven't seen anything about it, though.

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2006/05/25/nintendo-announces-japanese-wii-price.htm

So the maximum price in U.S. dollars will probably be $225. Sounds like a pretty good deal. :)

75

Video Game Chat / Re: Who cares about game ratings?

« on: May 25, 2006, 08:30:39 PM »

I still think they shouldn't show it, even non-graphically. I just don't consider it appropriate for a video game.

I also don't like too much the way that, since there's an option for simulated sex in the first place, it's possible to engage in sex other than sex between a married couple for procreation.