Messages

16

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: For or Against?

« on: August 19, 2006, 12:56:19 AM »

Leviticus 20:13

17

Forum Games / Re: Endless Rock-Scissors-Paper

« on: August 13, 2006, 04:40:26 PM »

BrickBuddy sues BrickWiz for patent infringement.

18

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: For or Against?

« on: August 13, 2006, 03:23:58 PM »

Also, I think the government is making too big a deal of this. Shouldn't they be trying to stop murder,  war, theft, hate crimes, etc. not same sex marriage?!

I'd rather have the government try to prepare us for peak oil, or at least acknowledge its existence.

One thing that really bugs me about the government's response to gay marraiges is the hypocrisy of those who want to ammend the constitution to ban gay marraige.  I've heard many conservatives say that the issue of gay marraige would ideally be left to individual states, but a constitutional ammendment is needed because activist judges are striking down bans on gay marraige against the wishes of the citizens.  Seeing as gay marraige is currently legal in only one state, I don't really see any epidemic of activist judges on this issue.  But, even if there were such an epidemic, if conservatives really wanted to leave the issue of gay marraige to the states, then they should propose a constitutional ammendment saying something to the effect of "there is no constitutional guarantee of a right to marraige, and laws restricting marraige rights on the basis of gender are not unconstitutional" or something like that.  Then activist judges could not claim that laws outlawing gay marraiges violate the constitution, and the issue really would be left to the states.  That's not what conservatives want.  They want a constitutional ammendment explicitly defining marraige as a union between one man and one woman.  Such an ammendment would not leave the issue up to the states.

19

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: For or Against?

« on: August 12, 2006, 11:37:03 PM »

I'm just curious, Sapphira, when you chose your user name were you aware of the definition of the word sapphic?  You have a deceptive user name for some one who rejects the homosexual lifestyle.  I'm not trying to use that as some pathetic counterpoint to your views; I thought everything you said was very cogent.  I just think it's funny.

20

General Chat / Re: The HOPEFUL thread: Be happy here!

« on: August 12, 2006, 03:44:47 PM »

I just got my first pair of prescription glasses.  I can see clearly now, the rain is gone!

21

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: For or Against?

« on: August 11, 2006, 08:51:29 PM »

If you believe all of this, the I'm going to make a religion in which we kill people. Will that be ok for you?

No.  As I said I do not believe unshakably in freedom of religion.  I also care about protecting innocent people, which is why, as I stated, I am opposed to incest, and to marraige with minors.  I don't see how consentual gay marraige harms any innocent people.

So I can't have a child with a woman?

Go right ahead.  It hasn't come to the point where we need to discourage people from intentional procreation (though this is current policy in China), but neither do I think that the government should encourage procreation.  The supreme court of Washington state justified the ban on gay marraige by arguing that the purpose of legally recognized marraiges is to encourage procreation.  I do not believe this argument; I believe that marraige laws came into being as a formal recognition of religious practices, not as a practical means of encouraging procreation.  But, if you do accept the supreme court's argument, then I question the policy itself.  Why should we encourage procreation at all?  There's really no shortage of people.

22

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: For or Against?

« on: August 11, 2006, 04:56:20 PM »

Wow, I leave for three days and I sure miss a lot...

I believe (though not unshakably) in two principles:

1) freedom of religion
2) separation of church and state

In accordance with "freedom of religion", I believe that gay marraige, polygamy, and various other deviant marital arrangements as purely religious constructs should be legal.  I do not condone marital arrangements in which one or more parties are incapable of consent, e.g. marraige with animals or children, or marital arrangements which are likely to lead to material harm to innocents, e.g. incest, but I don't see how gay marraige between consenting adults causes any material harm.

In accordance with "separation of church and state", I believe that laws governing legally recognized marraiges should not be affected by religious beliefs.  This raises the question of why we need legally recognized marraiges at all.  The supreme court of my state (Washington) has ruled that marraige is a legal institution created to encourage procreation, and therefor marraige can be restricted, for reasons not related to religion, to marraige between a man and a woman.  Personally I think the world is grossly overpopulated, and I don't think we should be encouraging procreation at all.  I'm all for encouraging child raising, e.g. through adoption, but I don't want to encourage child creation.  I have yet to see credible evidence indicating that gay couples are less effective at raising children than are straight couples.  So I am in favor of gay marraige.

23

General Chat / Re: The Toon Discussion Thread

« on: August 04, 2006, 02:00:17 AM »

Back on topic...

South Park is my favorite cartoon.  Often South Park is just stupid, but when it's good, it's great.  My second favorite cartoon is Futurama.  Futurama is far superior to The Simpsons IMHO.  I think many will agree that some of the best episodes of The Simpsons are the Treehouse of Horror Halloween specials, because in those episodes the writers can just do any crazy thing they think of without worrying about the constraints of reality.  Every single episode of Futurama is like that.

24

Forum Games / Re: Try escaping this one, Mcgyver.

« on: August 04, 2006, 01:16:01 AM »

First tie all of the strings together, and tie one end to the army knife.  Open up the can opener on the end of the knife.  Use the bubble wrap to fashion a crude sling-shot, and use it to fire the knife, tied to the string, through an air hole and through the spaces between the crates toward an auto-inflatable raft on the plane wall.  Hook the raft with the can opener, and drag it back towards you until it is at the base of your crate.  Shove the chunk of granola bar through the air hole so it lands right on the pin to inflate the raft.  The mouse will be atracted by the granola bar and will pull the raft pin in the process of eating it.  The raft inflates rapidly, pushing the crates under you and knocking your crate over.  Since you were on top of at least three other crates, it's a pretty long fall - far enough to knock your crate open.  You survive uninjured, however, since you were surrounded by infinite packaging peanuts.  Now go find the crate with the ticking sound.  Luckily, it happens to be on the top of a stack.  Even in your sedated state you're strong enough to climb the pile of crate knocked over by the raft, so you can get to the top of the crate with the bomb.  Use the fingernail cleaner on your knife (recovered from the raft) to unscrew the top of the crate.  Use the knife's can opener to disarm the bomb.  Now you can relax and wait for the sedative to wear off...or can you?  Take the bulk of the explosive out of the bomb (the bomb was probably strong enough to destroy the whole plane), leaving enough to blow out a good chunk of the plane wall.  Reprogram the bomb to blow in one minute, put it at a side of the plane away from all the saftey equipment, and run behind all the crates.  The bomb blows a huge hole in the side of the plane and the crates start blowing out.  Grab a parachute, an inflatable raft, and any other useful supplies you see, and jump.

You're hand-cuffed to a solid steel chair on top of an old skyscraper which is about to be demolished.  The demolition crew doesn't know you're up there and you can't scream loud enough to get anyone's attention.  The chair is bolted down and is completely imobile.  You're barefoot and the entire roof of the building is covered with shattered glass, a la Die Hard.  There is a single door on the roof leading into the builing.  It is on the other side of the roof, and it's locked.  The building has fifty stories and is going to be imploded in two minutes.  With your legs you can reach a full jar of peanut butter, a soft baseball cap, and a pillow.  Just out of reach of your legs are a pair of perscription glasses (not yours, you have perfect vision) and a fire extinguisher.  Far out of your reach are a bowling ball and a very confused cat.

25

Forum Games / Re: Mario Word Association

« on: August 01, 2006, 08:47:35 PM »

Attacks

26

Mario Chat / Re: Snaking

« on: August 01, 2006, 12:24:34 AM »

Thanks for the info bobman.  This rases the question... does disconnecting still count as a loss for you if your opponent(s) never get to the match ending screen?

27

Forum Games / Re: Mario Word Association

« on: July 31, 2006, 09:42:44 PM »

slow

28

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

« on: July 31, 2006, 05:46:24 PM »

E3 is no more, and I might have actually had a chance to go to it next year...

29

Forum Games / Re: BORED-mk2 Super Crisis Helsinki 2013

« on: July 31, 2006, 05:36:11 PM »

CW: Vacuum monster, are you any match for my Eagle's Claw? *strikes kung fu pose*

Monster: Yes.

CW: You may be a match for my Eagle's Claw, but can you withstand the deliciously awesome power of PEZ?

*pulls out Pez dispenser*

*tilt's head on Pez dispenser four times in rapid succession, shooting four Pez out at 0.8 times the speed of light*

Monster: You have wounded me mortally, becuase my Pez resistant armor was designed to sustain only three consecutive Pez stirkes!  NOOOOOOO! Roar. *explodes*

Janitor: Now there are chunks of vacuum monster everywhere!  It will take all day to clean this up!  Have at thee!  *charges at CW with mop*

CW: *fires Pez at Janitor*

Janitor: *effortlessly deflects Pez with mop handle while continuing charge*

Roshan: While CW is distracted I can grab the legendary cartoons!

Narrator: Or can he...?

30

Video Game Chat / Re: Graphics Vs. Performance Vs. Innovativeness Vs. Replay Value etc etc etc ...

« on: July 29, 2006, 06:06:01 PM »

I chose entertainment and replay value.  Story is the wild card.  I love a good story, but very few games have stories that really interest me, and the ones that do almost always have low replay value.  For example, the best stories are usually in RPGs, but RPGs are the sort of game I'll play through once and then never touch again.  In contrast I still enjoy Super Smash Brother Melee to this day, but it doesn't have any sort of story.

Sound/Music should be a choice.  I wouldn't have picked it (it's not as important as entertainment and replay value) but an epic musical score and detailed surround sound effects can add a lot to the atmosphere of a game.