I don't know, but it sounds incredibly boring. Obviously it is a tool to glamourise joining the army, and they'll probably get a few idiots join up because of it. Sad. I don’t know, but it sounds incredibly boring. Obviously it is a tool to glamourise joining the army, and they’ll probably get a few idiots join up because of it. Sad.

2009-11-06T10:59:40-08:00

true

1435064

63528

2009-11-06T10:59:40-08:00

178341

Well, obviously not. There'll always be idiots who suggest pouring troops in, but the whole point of electing Obama was that stupid stuff like that wouldn't happen any more. I also agree with woodythedon. Well, obviously not. There’ll always be idiots who suggest pouring troops in, but the whole point of electing Obama was that stupid stuff like that wouldn’t happen any more. I also agree with woodythedon.

2009-11-06T10:58:14-08:00

true

1435061

63604

2009-11-06T10:58:14-08:00

178341

That would be awesome Peu. I'm surprised nobody has yet! That would be awesome Peu. I’m surprised nobody has yet!

2009-10-25T08:20:28-07:00

true

1403751

57244

2009-10-25T08:20:28-07:00

178341

Anything's possible, but I certainly don't believe in anything until there's reasonable evidence of it. Anything’s possible, but I certainly don’t believe in anything until there’s reasonable evidence of it.

2009-10-13T21:43:55-07:00

true

1368965

60684

2009-10-13T21:43:55-07:00

178341

Well, although I'm in support of the sexualised images in general, a topless man and a topless woman are not the same. This is due to cultural evolution, and it's not something that can simply be changed. breasts are secondary sex organs, male chests aren't. It's a complex subject, but it can't be dismissed. Well, although I’m in support of the sexualised images in general, a topless man and a topless woman are not the same. This is due to cultural evolution, and it’s not something that can simply be changed. breasts are secondary sex organs, male chests aren’t. It’s a complex subject, but it can’t be dismissed.

2009-10-13T21:20:54-07:00

true

1368928

58790

2009-10-13T21:20:54-07:00

178341

"This idea is bad because it’s disrespectful to women. The female Kongai characters may be attractive, but they are NOT sex objects." Again, I have to agree with someguy. Sexual attraction to a person (female or male) isn't disrespectful. Especially when the person in question is fictional. I can understand where this opinion derives from, but the thinking behind it is too simple. By appreciating the sexual attractiveness of an image, we are not reducing the image to something less than it is, or expressing a disregard for other features of it. Just like in real life, thinking a woman is sexy does not mean you don't think she's also funny, clever, talented, etc. This applies equally to men, though for some reason nobody ever remarks about that. And that is sexist, pointing things like this out for one gender and not for another. And obviously you can't show boobs on kongregate. It's PG13, so they're not appropriate. We just said we'd like to see, lol “This idea is bad because it’s disrespectful to women. The female Kongai characters may be attractive, but they are NOT sex objects.” Again, I have to agree with someguy. Sexual attraction to a person (female or male) isn’t disrespectful. Especially when the person in question is fictional. I can understand where this opinion derives from, but the thinking behind it is too simple. By appreciating the sexual attractiveness of an image, we are not reducing the image to something less than it is, or expressing a disregard for other features of it. Just like in real life, thinking a woman is sexy does not mean you don’t think she’s also funny, clever, talented, etc. This applies equally to men, though for some reason nobody ever remarks about that. And that is sexist, pointing things like this out for one gender and not for another. And obviously you can’t show boobs on kongregate. It’s PG13, so they’re not appropriate. We just said we’d like to see, lol

2009-10-11T09:48:40-07:00

true

1361322

58790

2009-10-11T09:48:40-07:00

178341

Haha, awesome Haha, awesome

2009-10-11T09:43:43-07:00

true

1361301

57244

2009-10-11T09:43:43-07:00

178341

Yeah, just stick to the existing ones. Yeah, just stick to the existing ones.

2009-10-11T09:42:57-07:00

true

1361298

60119

2009-10-11T09:42:57-07:00

178341

Knowing as little as we do about Jesus, I don't see how anyone could make a serious claim that any body discovered were him. What factors would give it away? DNA tests would be no use; you could date the thing, but that wouldn't be much help. Knowing as little as we do about Jesus, I don’t see how anyone could make a serious claim that any body discovered were him. What factors would give it away? DNA tests would be no use; you could date the thing, but that wouldn’t be much help.

2009-10-07T11:33:43-07:00

true

1351664

59669

2009-10-07T11:33:43-07:00

178341

"besides, they are animated" If only they were. lol. “besides, they are animated” If only they were. lol.

2009-10-07T07:45:50-07:00

true

1351331

58790

2009-10-07T07:45:50-07:00

178341

I'd just like to reiterate; for a heterosexual man to be tantalised by the female form is *not* sexist or disrespectful at all. If that's ALL you see a woman as, there is a problem. I'm totally anti-sexist, I have regular debates with my *mother* where I stand up for the fact that women and men are completely and entirely equal. But I still love boobs. In fact, that's a large (ahem) part of the reason for the evolution of their shape. Image triggers enjoyment. It's no reflection on a person's attitude towards other genders, it's healthy, normal, and awesome. And there are plenty of half-naked men around, people just seem to complain about them less... now *that* is sexist. I’d just like to reiterate; for a heterosexual man to be tantalised by the female form is not sexist or disrespectful at all. If that’s ALL you see a woman as, there is a problem. I’m totally anti-sexist, I have regular debates with my mother where I stand up for the fact that women and men are completely and entirely equal. But I still love boobs. In fact, that’s a large (ahem) part of the reason for the evolution of their shape. Image triggers enjoyment. It’s no reflection on a person’s attitude towards other genders, it’s healthy, normal, and awesome. And there are plenty of half-naked men around, people just seem to complain about them less… now that is sexist.

2009-10-07T07:44:17-07:00

true

1351326

111

10151

2009-10-07T07:44:17-07:00

178341

I wish I had a script to just post 'hooray, I agree!' under everything someguyinworld says. I wish I had a script to just post ‘hooray, I agree!’ under everything someguyinworld says.

2009-10-07T07:38:51-07:00

true

1351317

57244

2009-10-07T07:38:51-07:00

178341

Definitely Picard. Kirk was a horrible person, it was very hard to sympathise with him as a character. Picard is intelligent, sensitive and brilliant. There is no contest. Definitely Picard. Kirk was a horrible person, it was very hard to sympathise with him as a character. Picard is intelligent, sensitive and brilliant. There is no contest.

2009-10-02T21:39:04-07:00

true

1342145

59035

2009-10-02T21:39:04-07:00

178341

"“A” means a lack of, or without. “Theist” means someone who believes in a god or gods. I can’t imagine how you can add those together, say the definition is “someone who believes that there is no god” and claim it to be more etymologically accurate." That's incorrect; It's the same root as 'atom' which essentially means indivisible. The 'a-' root means no, not, none etc, and thus fits the more technical defenition (the one you attribute to me) better. "I had no idea a lack of usefulness or precision make a definition colloquial. Me and my simple-minded language." Well, it certainly makes it less technical, and less appropriate for a discussion of this nature. "Again, the worthless “lol evolution is just a theory” definition is used far more often than the actual “Theory of Evolution” or “Theory of Gravity” definition. Yet the latter is clearly more meaningful." That's just stupid. There are only a few idiots who don't understand the word 'theory' that subscribe to that view. It's completely unrelated to what we're discussing, and if anything, applies more to him than to me, since he is the one misunderstanding his own sources. And plainly, the misunderstood version of the word 'theory' there is never used in technical discussion or by academics or philosophers; in this way it is similar to BSG's usage of the word 'atheist'. "No, it’s used less in technical discussion actually. Hey look! My claim of its prevalence has just as much evidence as yours! Quite a convincing argument, eh?" Used in 'technical' discussion among laymen and children maybe. If you're not willing to learn, you'll always be ignorant. ““A” means a lack of, or without. “Theist” means someone who believes in a god or gods. I can’t imagine how you can add those together, say the definition is “someone who believes that there is no god” and claim it to be more etymologically accurate.” That’s incorrect; It’s the same root as ‘atom’ which essentially means indivisible. The ‘a-’ root means no, not, none etc, and thus fits the more technical defenition (the one you attribute to me) better. “I had no idea a lack of usefulness or precision make a definition colloquial. Me and my simple-minded language.” Well, it certainly makes it less technical, and less appropriate for a discussion of this nature. “Again, the worthless “lol evolution is just a theory” definition is used far more often than the actual “Theory of Evolution” or “Theory of Gravity” definition. Yet the latter is clearly more meaningful.” That’s just stupid. There are only a few idiots who don’t understand the word ‘theory’ that subscribe to that view. It’s completely unrelated to what we’re discussing, and if anything, applies more to him than to me, since he is the one misunderstanding his own sources. And plainly, the misunderstood version of the word ‘theory’ there is never used in technical discussion or by academics or philosophers; in this way it is similar to BSG’s usage of the word ‘atheist’. “No, it’s used less in technical discussion actually. Hey look! My claim of its prevalence has just as much evidence as yours! Quite a convincing argument, eh?” Used in ‘technical’ discussion among laymen and children maybe. If you’re not willing to learn, you’ll always be ignorant.

2009-10-02T21:36:53-07:00

true

1342141

105

58748

2009-10-02T21:36:53-07:00

178341

This is an interesting point, because I can see how it can be argued both ways. I mean, 'gnostic atheist' and 'agnostic atheist' sound like more complex terms, and refer to two kinds of people who do not believe in a god. But the difference in belief systems between the two is greater, in my opinion, than the difference between a theist and a gnostic atheist. In a technical discussion, using it as an umbrella term *is* more colloquial because it is less precise and useful. Also, the most direct meaning of the word as it stands is 'gnostic atheist'. I can understand why members of a religion would use the umbrella term; after all, it doesn't matter to them what a person believes if they don't believe in their god. Theologians aren't philosophers though, and can't really be expected to care about the intricacies of meaning. The problem with citing a wikipedia article or somesuch is that it covers all usages in this way. I suppose you could say I am biased towards a certain meaning, but I genuinely think that there is more weight on a meaning that is more accurate etymologically, more generally used, and more prevalent in technical discussion. This is an interesting point, because I can see how it can be argued both ways. I mean, ‘gnostic atheist’ and ‘agnostic atheist’ sound like more complex terms, and refer to two kinds of people who do not believe in a god. But the difference in belief systems between the two is greater, in my opinion, than the difference between a theist and a gnostic atheist. In a technical discussion, using it as an umbrella term is more colloquial because it is less precise and useful. Also, the most direct meaning of the word as it stands is ‘gnostic atheist’. I can understand why members of a religion would use the umbrella term; after all, it doesn’t matter to them what a person believes if they don’t believe in their god. Theologians aren’t philosophers though, and can’t really be expected to care about the intricacies of meaning. The problem with citing a wikipedia article or somesuch is that it covers all usages in this way. I suppose you could say I am biased towards a certain meaning, but I genuinely think that there is more weight on a meaning that is more accurate etymologically, more generally used, and more prevalent in technical discussion.

2009-10-02T19:40:20-07:00

true

1341851

103

58748

2009-10-02T19:40:20-07:00

178341

Is the meaning of colloquial under dispute, or are you just being sarcastic? I think I need to find some adults to talk to :| Is the meaning of colloquial under dispute, or are you just being sarcastic? I think I need to find some adults to talk to :|

2009-10-02T18:21:32-07:00

true

1341680

101

58748

2009-10-02T18:21:32-07:00

178341

I pretty much met my girlfriend here XD I pretty much met my girlfriend here XD

2009-10-02T18:19:17-07:00

true

1341673

59174

2009-10-02T18:19:17-07:00

178341

Hmm, replace 'saturday morning cartoon' with a less child-oriented anime type series, and the bomb is dropped. Happiness! Hmm, replace ‘saturday morning cartoon’ with a less child-oriented anime type series, and the bomb is dropped. Happiness!

2009-10-02T11:09:28-07:00

true

1340891

58347

2009-10-02T11:09:28-07:00

178341

The final showdown in 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians". If you haven't seen that film, it is one of the most deliciously terrible things ever made. The final showdown in ‘Santa Claus Conquers the Martians". If you haven’t seen that film, it is one of the most deliciously terrible things ever made.

2009-10-02T11:00:57-07:00

true

1340877

59119

2009-10-02T11:00:57-07:00

178341

"It seems to me that you are using the term “Atheist” as if it were “Gnostic Atheist.”" Yes; being involved in philosophy this is a useful shorthand and generally what people mean by the word 'atheist'. The broader definition you are in love with is more colloquial, but okay for everyday use. "If you were having a “technical discussion” with someone about science, would you use the generally accepted meaning of theory that refers to something closer to a hypothesis, or would you use the everyday, simple-minded actual definition of theory?" Unlike BSG, I would use the generally accepted technical meaning, rather than the everyday meaning he prefers. I suppose I should not expect to find users of correct technical language on a gaming forum, but I took 'serious discussion' literally! “It seems to me that you are using the term “Atheist” as if it were “Gnostic Atheist.”” Yes; being involved in philosophy this is a useful shorthand and generally what people mean by the word ‘atheist’. The broader definition you are in love with is more colloquial, but okay for everyday use. “If you were having a “technical discussion” with someone about science, would you use the generally accepted meaning of theory that refers to something closer to a hypothesis, or would you use the everyday, simple-minded actual definition of theory?” Unlike BSG, I would use the generally accepted technical meaning, rather than the everyday meaning he prefers. I suppose I should not expect to find users of correct technical language on a gaming forum, but I took ‘serious discussion’ literally!

2009-10-02T10:59:40-07:00

true

1340871

58748

2009-10-02T10:59:40-07:00

178341

Yes, it's massively arrogant to force people to use the language, especially when the majority of native citizens can't be bothered to. Yes, it’s massively arrogant to force people to use the language, especially when the majority of native citizens can’t be bothered to.

2009-10-02T10:55:50-07:00

true

1340863

59107

2009-10-02T10:55:50-07:00

178341

R.E. objectification; Human beings are sex objects, visually. That doesn't detract from who they are as a person, their personality, their skills, their contributions to the world or anything else. It's a separate thing, but it's a natural and unavoidable thing. The enjoyment of sexualised images is NOT sexist for these reasons. R.E. objectification; Human beings are sex objects, visually. That doesn’t detract from who they are as a person, their personality, their skills, their contributions to the world or anything else. It’s a separate thing, but it’s a natural and unavoidable thing. The enjoyment of sexualised images is NOT sexist for these reasons.

2009-10-02T10:53:55-07:00

true

1340860

101

10151

2009-10-02T10:53:55-07:00

178341

Wow. That could potentially be even better. Wow. That could potentially be even better.

2009-10-02T10:51:07-07:00

true

1340857

58790

2009-10-02T10:51:07-07:00

178341

Well, obviously there's no such thing as proof. There's no real substitute for experience with something like this. What exactly are you after? If you engage in academic discussion you'll generally find people confused by your definitions or forced to change the way they speak to accomodate them. If you're after something specific and are willing to learn, I'll do the legwork. If not, I shan't bother; I handed in my philosophy dissertation earlier today and I'm a little fed up of it all XD Well, obviously there’s no such thing as proof. There’s no real substitute for experience with something like this. What exactly are you after? If you engage in academic discussion you’ll generally find people confused by your definitions or forced to change the way they speak to accomodate them. If you’re after something specific and are willing to learn, I’ll do the legwork. If not, I shan’t bother; I handed in my philosophy dissertation earlier today and I’m a little fed up of it all XD

2009-10-01T22:00:11-07:00

true

1340322

58748

2009-10-01T22:00:11-07:00

178341

Definitely Europe; there's no real contest. Though Europe does vary a lot. I would avoid America because it is so politically and ideologically backward, despite some beautiful scenery. Definitely Europe; there’s no real contest. Though Europe does vary a lot. I would avoid America because it is so politically and ideologically backward, despite some beautiful scenery.

2009-10-01T21:58:09-07:00

true

1340319

59090

2009-10-01T21:58:09-07:00

178341