Times: 1: 6.5 2: 7.9 3: 14.1 4: 11.8 5: 1.3 6: 10.6 7: 26.0 8: 26.5 9: 35.5 10: 57.5 11: 30.3 12: 3.8 13: 73.6 14: 25.2 15: 18.5 16: 23.0 17: 1.3 18: 57.9 19: 35.0 20: 9.8 21: 7.6 22: 10.5 23: 11.6 24: 6.9 25: 27.1 Times: 1: 6.5 2: 7.9 3: 14.1 4: 11.8 5: 1.3 6: 10.6 7: 26.0 8: 26.5 9: 35.5 10: 57.5 11: 30.3 12: 3.8 13: 73.6 14: 25.2 15: 18.5 16: 23.0 17: 1.3 18: 57.9 19: 35.0 20: 9.8 21: 7.6 22: 10.5 23: 11.6 24: 6.9 25: 27.1

2009-11-08T14:22:33-08:00

true

1443130

63832

2009-11-08T14:22:33-08:00

303925

Holding the top score with time at the moment. For stars, I unfortunately still need half a star more at 7, 11, 14, and 18. Need 1.5 stars more at 24, but I think that one isn't doable at the moment, seeing as the two pick-ups at the left are impossible. I have some amazing times standing, some of which I can probably still improve on, but I'm guessing I'll eventually get overrun. I'm also incredibly bad at wide, open areas. Holding the top score with time at the moment. For stars, I unfortunately still need half a star more at 7, 11, 14, and 18. Need 1.5 stars more at 24, but I think that one isn’t doable at the moment, seeing as the two pick-ups at the left are impossible. I have some amazing times standing, some of which I can probably still improve on, but I’m guessing I’ll eventually get overrun. I’m also incredibly bad at wide, open areas.

2009-11-08T12:12:19-08:00

true

1442541

63832

2009-11-08T12:12:19-08:00

303925

I believe the knowledge they thought they would gain was that of God (if I remember correctly, could be a dumbed down version of the true story). They didn't get as such, but they still went against the word of God. The knowledge they had before that was normal for that time. Can't really answer any questions about what I don't specifically believe any way. I believe the knowledge they thought they would gain was that of God (if I remember correctly, could be a dumbed down version of the true story). They didn’t get as such, but they still went against the word of God. The knowledge they had before that was normal for that time. Can’t really answer any questions about what I don’t specifically believe any way.

2009-11-08T12:02:26-08:00

true

1442494

63995

2009-11-08T12:02:26-08:00

303925

I think it is quite ironic you'd start a thread about it. I think it is quite ironic you’d start a thread about it.

2009-11-08T11:52:52-08:00

true

1442454

63996

2009-11-08T11:52:52-08:00

303925

I believe the poster (can't bring up the post right now) was mentioning homosexuality isn't a choice. I believe the poster (can’t bring up the post right now) was mentioning homosexuality isn’t a choice.

2009-11-08T11:51:34-08:00

true

1442446

179

63449

2009-11-08T11:51:34-08:00

303925

That is the most interesting form of debating I've ever seen. Upgraded your Skip All Points In Discussion to level 10? Don't make statements if you are going to ignore all arguments made against them. That is the most interesting form of debating I’ve ever seen. Upgraded your Skip All Points In Discussion to level 10? Don’t make statements if you are going to ignore all arguments made against them.

2009-11-08T11:44:30-08:00

true

1442424

671

33708

2009-11-08T11:44:30-08:00

303925

bq. Therefor it can be concluded that being born with a trait does not make that trait right or acceptable. I've implied this before, but I'll tell you directly this time. This sentence does not say anything, it's a blank statement. Being born with a trait doesn't _inherently_ make that trait right, which is why we have the law to state it. <blockquote> Therefor it can be concluded that being born with a trait does not make that trait right or acceptable. </blockquote> I’ve implied this before, but I’ll tell you directly this time. This sentence does not say anything, it’s a blank statement. Being born with a trait doesn’t inherently make that trait right, which is why we have the law to state it.

2009-11-08T11:42:25-08:00

true

1442414

177

63449

2009-11-08T11:42:25-08:00

303925

bq. You need to understand writing better so you dont confuse yourself. You need to stop with the personal attacks. bq. I said you can’t prove people deserve equal rights. There is no fundamental truth that we deserve equal rights. Prove me wrong, dont insult me or what I say, especially when you fail to prove me wrong. Sith covered this basically. You can't prove a subjective issue as if it's objective. bq. I dont think im right b/c im in the majority. I think im right and I am in the majority. Those are completely 2 differnt statements which you are getting confused. It's actually worse, and I never implied the first statement. The majority thinks they're right, which is fine, as long as this doesn't mean the minority suffers. bq. Im showing you that the rights we say we deserve are because we say we deserve them. Its a VERY important concept to understand. Who says who deserves what? To keep it simple, who has decided that we aren't up in equal rights? bq. It does make a difference. Its a the key fundamental problem I have with how people think. People act as if they are entitled to things that they arent. Who decides who is entitled to something and who isn't, and why can they decide over others? bq. Why are they entitled to them? No, your counter points do not make sense. Why do some people have less equal rights than others? <blockquote> You need to understand writing better so you dont confuse yourself. </blockquote> You need to stop with the personal attacks. <blockquote> I said you can’t prove people deserve equal rights. There is no fundamental truth that we deserve equal rights. Prove me wrong, dont insult me or what I say, especially when you fail to prove me wrong. </blockquote> Sith covered this basically. You can’t prove a subjective issue as if it’s objective. <blockquote> I dont think im right b/c im in the majority. I think im right and I am in the majority. Those are completely 2 differnt statements which you are getting confused. </blockquote> It’s actually worse, and I never implied the first statement. The majority thinks they’re right, which is fine, as long as this doesn’t mean the minority suffers. <blockquote> Im showing you that the rights we say we deserve are because we say we deserve them. Its a VERY important concept to understand. </blockquote> Who says who deserves what? To keep it simple, who has decided that we aren’t up in equal rights? <blockquote> It does make a difference. Its a the key fundamental problem I have with how people think. People act as if they are entitled to things that they arent. </blockquote> Who decides who is entitled to something and who isn’t, and why can they decide over others? <blockquote> Why are they entitled to them? </blockquote> No, your counter points do not make sense. Why do some people have less equal rights than others?

2009-11-08T11:31:10-08:00

true

1442385

669

33708

2009-11-08T11:31:10-08:00

303925

bq. Ask SaintAjora to explain it to you Darkruler and Kisame. Its simple logic which I am using, you are bringing in your personal feelings and not understanding the point. You seem to rely on telling everyone they do not understand the point and they're bringing in their personal feelings. You don't actually reply to the points, you just state a completely unrelated statement to brush everything off. Tell me what you truly mean, then, don't say I keep misunderstanding without actually telling me how I _should_ understand it. Also, point out where I bring in any "personal feelings", as I didn't up to date. <blockquote> Ask SaintAjora to explain it to you Darkruler and Kisame. Its simple logic which I am using, you are bringing in your personal feelings and not understanding the point. </blockquote> You seem to rely on telling everyone they do not understand the point and they’re bringing in their personal feelings. You don’t actually reply to the points, you just state a completely unrelated statement to brush everything off. Tell me what you truly mean, then, don’t say I keep misunderstanding without actually telling me how I should understand it. Also, point out where I bring in any “personal feelings”, as I didn’t up to date.

2009-11-08T02:32:20-08:00

true

1441393

161

63449

2009-11-08T02:32:20-08:00

303925

bq. So show me where I had said something about majority prior to you mentioning it. Pro tip: you wont. I hadn’t said anything about majority. So you were arguing _just_ because you love to prove people wrong about completely insignificant points? You are whining that I say you base something off of the majority when you didn't, but consequently begin making all kind of arguments _for_ majority rule. bq. Thats a cute reason for equal rights, but it still does not prove everyone deserves equal rights. It's not a cute reason. It's a fact that you do not want less equal rights than others. It's a fact nobody wants that (now you'll come up with extreme examples of depressed people saying they want to die). You keep on hammering on "you can't prove this or that!", but it's really useless what you're doing. What does it matter we can't prove it? What matters is that everyone wants it, and for that to happen, everyone should want it for everyone. <blockquote> So show me where I had said something about majority prior to you mentioning it. Pro tip: you wont. I hadn’t said anything about majority. </blockquote> So you were arguing just because you love to prove people wrong about completely insignificant points? You are whining that I say you base something off of the majority when you didn’t, but consequently begin making all kind of arguments for majority rule. <blockquote> Thats a cute reason for equal rights, but it still does not prove everyone deserves equal rights. </blockquote> It’s not a cute reason. It’s a fact that you do not want less equal rights than others. It’s a fact nobody wants that (now you’ll come up with extreme examples of depressed people saying they want to die). You keep on hammering on “you can’t prove this or that!”, but it’s really useless what you’re doing. What does it matter we can’t prove it? What matters is that everyone wants it, and for that to happen, everyone should want it for everyone.

2009-11-08T02:08:04-08:00

true

1441378

658

33708

2009-11-08T02:08:04-08:00

303925

Level 6 was strange, at least the fact that how the developer meant it to be isn't equal to how it is. It said 5 stars was 2.3 seconds, but I got much higher than that. Also, level 24 seems (seemed? I didn't check today yet) like there's two pick-ups that cannot be picked up. Level 6 was strange, at least the fact that how the developer meant it to be isn’t equal to how it is. It said 5 stars was 2.3 seconds, but I got much higher than that. Also, level 24 seems (seemed? I didn’t check today yet) like there’s two pick-ups that cannot be picked up.

2009-11-08T00:50:11-08:00

true

1441280

63832

2009-11-08T00:50:11-08:00

303925

bq. Untill then, all statements from a heterosexual are unbased unless backed by research that is well agreed upon. I don't have to be a homosexual to see that their trait is of no harm to others. <blockquote> Untill then, all statements from a heterosexual are unbased unless backed by research that is well agreed upon. </blockquote> I don’t have to be a homosexual to see that their trait is of no harm to others.

2009-11-08T00:47:12-08:00

true

1441277

150

63449

2009-11-08T00:47:12-08:00

303925

bq. im dismissing it because you can logically conclude that being born with homosexual tendencies does not make it right and doesnt mean other people have to think its right This, particularly. When a baby is born and it looks like it's male, it doesn't mean that it's right for the baby to be male. When it's black, it doesn't mean it's right for the baby to be black. When it has bad eyes and needs glasses later, it doesn't mean it's right for the baby to have bad eyes. The problem is that the people can't do anything about how they're born, but we _can_ see that none of these have a negative effect on others, or shouldn't have. You're just making a blank statement. <blockquote> im dismissing it because you can logically conclude that being born with homosexual tendencies does not make it right and doesnt mean other people have to think its right </blockquote> This, particularly. When a baby is born and it looks like it’s male, it doesn’t mean that it’s right for the baby to be male. When it’s black, it doesn’t mean it’s right for the baby to be black. When it has bad eyes and needs glasses later, it doesn’t mean it’s right for the baby to have bad eyes. The problem is that the people can’t do anything about how they’re born, but we can see that none of these have a negative effect on others, or shouldn’t have. You’re just making a blank statement.

2009-11-08T00:44:15-08:00

true

1441271

148

63449

2009-11-08T00:44:15-08:00

303925

bq. You CAN be against something but think that it should be allowed, can you not? The inconsistency was where you first denied using the factor "majority" as a reason against homosexuality, but then say homosexuals do not have equal rights because there is so much opposition against it. Do you feel the latter is right? If yes, you're inconsistent. If no, then I don't know why we're discussing about the matter. bq. That statement is really broad and could be incorrect in so many different situations. Reply to what I said _after_ that. We shouldn't have to prove that people deserve equal rights. Look at yourself and think if you want to have less equal rights to another person, then apply that to others. In the end, everyone is selfish in that they want equal rights to others, and if we start removing those equal rights, we might end up in such a situation ourselves. <blockquote> You CAN be against something but think that it should be allowed, can you not? </blockquote> The inconsistency was where you first denied using the factor “majority” as a reason against homosexuality, but then say homosexuals do not have equal rights because there is so much opposition against it. Do you feel the latter is right? If yes, you’re inconsistent. If no, then I don’t know why we’re discussing about the matter. <blockquote> That statement is really broad and could be incorrect in so many different situations. </blockquote> Reply to what I said after that. We shouldn’t have to prove that people deserve equal rights. Look at yourself and think if you want to have less equal rights to another person, then apply that to others. In the end, everyone is selfish in that they want equal rights to others, and if we start removing those equal rights, we might end up in such a situation ourselves.

2009-11-08T00:40:08-08:00

true

1441264

656

33708

2009-11-08T00:40:08-08:00

303925

bq. Gays should have the same rights as regulars, no more, no less. No, no, not same rights, _equal_ rights. Having the same right would be "everyone is allowed to marry a person of the opposite gender". An _equal_ right would be "everyone is allowed to marry any person". Of course, no children involved. <blockquote> Gays should have the same rights as regulars, no more, no less. </blockquote> No, no, not same rights, equal rights. Having the same right would be “everyone is allowed to marry a person of the opposite gender”. An equal right would be “everyone is allowed to marry any person”. Of course, no children involved.

2009-11-08T00:21:49-08:00

true

1441239

142

63449

2009-11-08T00:21:49-08:00

303925

bq. Either way heaven would be a lot like hell after being there an eternity. That's from a human's point of view. The belief is not that humans go to heaven/hell, but their souls. <blockquote> Either way heaven would be a lot like hell after being there an eternity. </blockquote> That’s from a human’s point of view. The belief is not that humans go to heaven/hell, but their souls.

2009-11-07T17:21:46-08:00

true

1439944

135

63175

2009-11-07T17:21:46-08:00

303925

bq. Its not legal because of the amount of opposition it has against it. But two posts back you mentioned you never said anything about a majority. That is pretty inconsistent. bq. Your asking me if people should be allowed to have gay sex? That’s kind of a broad question. The context and situation could dictate the answer to that question. In general, yes they should be allowed. So, they should be allowed, but you're against homosexuality? Or are you simply against the thought of being a homosexual yourself? bq. Show my lack of consistency or refrain from calling out my lack of consistency. Pointed out one above. bq. You can talk all day long, but you will never be able to prove that people deserve equal rights. It doesn't matter what people deserve. What matters is what would work. Treating everyone unequally is bound to face resistance. bq. I would more or less simply say I dont have an opinion for or against it. I think that's the answer we were all looking for. <blockquote> Its not legal because of the amount of opposition it has against it. </blockquote> But two posts back you mentioned you never said anything about a majority. That is pretty inconsistent. <blockquote> Your asking me if people should be allowed to have gay sex? That’s kind of a broad question. The context and situation could dictate the answer to that question. In general, yes they should be allowed. </blockquote> So, they should be allowed, but you’re against homosexuality? Or are you simply against the thought of being a homosexual yourself? <blockquote> Show my lack of consistency or refrain from calling out my lack of consistency. </blockquote> Pointed out one above. <blockquote> You can talk all day long, but you will never be able to prove that people deserve equal rights. </blockquote> It doesn’t matter what people deserve. What matters is what would work. Treating everyone unequally is bound to face resistance. <blockquote> I would more or less simply say I dont have an opinion for or against it. </blockquote> I think that’s the answer we were all looking for.

2009-11-07T17:19:13-08:00

true

1439929

651

33708

2009-11-07T17:19:13-08:00

303925

bq. Darkruler, how do I avoid in the future people who take my post out of context like yourself? I said i was not comparing them, yet you claim i was making an analogy, AKA, comparing them. Please read my the whole post in the future. Then tell me whatever you're trying to state here. I've been going back and forth trying to find out, but all you're saying is "that isn't what I said" and "stop putting words in my mouth". bq. Therefor it can be concluded that being born with a trait does not make that trait right or acceptable. That's correct, thus the "trait" has to be put under the banner of right and wrong instead of it already being done for us. Some people think violence is wrong, which is fine. Some people think homosexuality is wrong, which is fine. Opinions are perfectly allowed. However, there's a key difference in handling these two "traits". I'm sure you know what it is. <blockquote> Darkruler, how do I avoid in the future people who take my post out of context like yourself? I said i was not comparing them, yet you claim i was making an analogy, AKA, comparing them. Please read my the whole post in the future. </blockquote> Then tell me whatever you’re trying to state here. I’ve been going back and forth trying to find out, but all you’re saying is “that isn’t what I said” and “stop putting words in my mouth”. <blockquote> Therefor it can be concluded that being born with a trait does not make that trait right or acceptable. </blockquote> That’s correct, thus the “trait” has to be put under the banner of right and wrong instead of it already being done for us. Some people think violence is wrong, which is fine. Some people think homosexuality is wrong, which is fine. Opinions are perfectly allowed. However, there’s a key difference in handling these two “traits”. I’m sure you know what it is.

2009-11-07T17:09:37-08:00

true

1439878

137

63449

2009-11-07T17:09:37-08:00

303925

bq. Is there also a switch which makes people want to rape others? Murder others? Have sex with animals? Have sex with small children? Etc.? Wrong analogies in any way. Each of these by definition involves someone who does not give consent, or cannot give consent. With homosexuality, both parties involved can give consent. <blockquote> Is there also a switch which makes people want to rape others? Murder others? Have sex with animals? Have sex with small children? Etc.? </blockquote> Wrong analogies in any way. Each of these by definition involves someone who does not give consent, or cannot give consent. With homosexuality, both parties involved can give consent.

2009-11-07T15:50:15-08:00

true

1439526

127

63449

2009-11-07T15:50:15-08:00

303925

bq. They can depending on where they live, and those that cannot, cannot do it because it is not legal. Why is not legal? bq. You might want to figure out what my viewpoint is before you project the bigoted viewpoint on me that you want me to have. You're the only one projecting anything on yourself. It's very fine you state the Bible tells you not to have homosexual relations. Then don't. Many homosexuals do not have a Bible, or believe in it, so they should be able to have such a relationship, no? <blockquote> They can depending on where they live, and those that cannot, cannot do it because it is not legal. </blockquote> Why is not legal? <blockquote> You might want to figure out what my viewpoint is before you project the bigoted viewpoint on me that you want me to have. </blockquote> You’re the only one projecting anything on yourself. It’s very fine you state the Bible tells you not to have homosexual relations. Then don’t. Many homosexuals do not have a Bible, or believe in it, so they should be able to have such a relationship, no?

2009-11-07T15:47:43-08:00

true

1439514

632

33708

2009-11-07T15:47:43-08:00

303925

bq. # Where did i say anything about a majority? What the hell are you basing it off then? Where did you find the "right" to have more rights than others? bq. What rights am i “stripping away”? Not so much stripping them away as deliberately having a right that makes it unable for homosexuals to do something you can. In reality, that's a right stripped away from them. bq. How does that example have anything to do with what ive done or believe in? It's really simple, it was an analogy. In one, a person does not have equal rights to another (you), in your story, homosexuals do not have equal rights to heterosexuals. It's more complicated, though, and I've already covered it before. Feel free to reply first, though. Why can homosexuals not marry the person they love and you can? <blockquote> # Where did i say anything about a majority? </blockquote> What the hell are you basing it off then? Where did you find the “right” to have more rights than others? <blockquote> What rights am i “stripping away”? </blockquote> Not so much stripping them away as deliberately having a right that makes it unable for homosexuals to do something you can. In reality, that’s a right stripped away from them. <blockquote> How does that example have anything to do with what ive done or believe in? </blockquote> It’s really simple, it was an analogy. In one, a person does not have equal rights to another (you), in your story, homosexuals do not have equal rights to heterosexuals. It’s more complicated, though, and I’ve already covered it before. Feel free to reply first, though. Why can homosexuals not marry the person they love and you can?

2009-11-07T15:24:59-08:00

true

1439403

630

33708

2009-11-07T15:24:59-08:00

303925

bq. Because the bible tells us not to have homosexual relations. So because you're in the majority you can just go ahead and strip the people you hate of their rights? I don't even care who says this, or where this is written. You wouldn't accept your rights being stripped from you either. Let's say your neighbourhood starts getting together more and more often without inviting you. You eventually see them walking around with books, whispering when they see you, and acting as if you don't exist when you come closer. Then they finally call you forth and say they have decided to strip your rights in their neighbourhood. You can no longer do the things they can. Their reason? The books they're reading is speaking of "evil Pacaholic". That which is evil should not have rights. What will you do? bq. He’s not assuming that. He posted that he has children (or child?) and hes loving it. The crux was that he's rather selfish. He seems like he's seeing his point of view as the only right one. I may be misinterpreting, but it doesn't seem like he's trying to understand what homosexuals see in their own life. <blockquote> Because the bible tells us not to have homosexual relations. </blockquote> So because you’re in the majority you can just go ahead and strip the people you hate of their rights? I don’t even care who says this, or where this is written. You wouldn’t accept your rights being stripped from you either. Let’s say your neighbourhood starts getting together more and more often without inviting you. You eventually see them walking around with books, whispering when they see you, and acting as if you don’t exist when you come closer. Then they finally call you forth and say they have decided to strip your rights in their neighbourhood. You can no longer do the things they can. Their reason? The books they’re reading is speaking of “evil Pacaholic”. That which is evil should not have rights. What will you do? <blockquote> He’s not assuming that. He posted that he has children (or child?) and hes loving it. </blockquote> The crux was that he’s rather selfish. He seems like he’s seeing his point of view as the only right one. I may be misinterpreting, but it doesn’t seem like he’s trying to understand what homosexuals see in their own life.

2009-11-07T15:07:36-08:00

true

1439339

627

33708

2009-11-07T15:07:36-08:00

303925

I'm surprised there isn't a topic on this one yet. "Play it here.":http://www.kongregate.com/games/flashrelax/maze-stopper-3 I'm currently at 105 stars and 425 seconds win time, and I'm still hopeless at some of the levels (those stars I still don't have require a lot more time). There are levels that can only be done in a certain way, and getting 5 stars there is getting exactly that time. Other levels, however, seem to be open to a lot of strategy. Level 6 proved this to me, or it might also prove that Flashrelax didn't consider the solution that way. Any way, I opened up the topic because it's a creative game, and the third in the series was even more creative. Loved the fire, loved the slippery ice a little less, but overall I simply loved it. No idea why the rating is so low. I’m surprised there isn’t a topic on this one yet. <a href="http://www.kongregate.com/games/flashrelax/maze-stopper-3">Play it here.</a> I’m currently at 105 stars and 425 seconds win time, and I’m still hopeless at some of the levels (those stars I still don’t have require a lot more time). There are levels that can only be done in a certain way, and getting 5 stars there is getting exactly that time. Other levels, however, seem to be open to a lot of strategy. Level 6 proved this to me, or it might also prove that Flashrelax didn’t consider the solution that way. Any way, I opened up the topic because it’s a creative game, and the third in the series was even more creative. Loved the fire, loved the slippery ice a little less, but overall I simply loved it. No idea why the rating is so low.

2009-11-07T14:14:22-08:00

true

1439066

63832

2009-11-07T14:14:22-08:00

303925

bq. <Cjk98> That isn't atheism. Neither is the belief in "nothing", since I may as well address the topic poster. The topic title therefore doesn't make much sense. <blockquote> <cjk98> </blockquote> That isn’t atheism. Neither is the belief in “nothing”, since I may as well address the topic poster. The topic title therefore doesn’t make much sense.

2009-11-06T15:45:43-08:00

true

1435941

63610

2009-11-06T15:45:43-08:00

303925

We can keep this short or make it long, but I doubt we'll get any where. Suffice to say I used a word I didn't intend to be offensive. You took it as offensive. Too bad. I can take many things as offensive, but it only slows down the discussion. I'm going to cut out of this, as it's becoming increasingly off-topic. We can keep this short or make it long, but I doubt we’ll get any where. Suffice to say I used a word I didn’t intend to be offensive. You took it as offensive. Too bad. I can take many things as offensive, but it only slows down the discussion. I’m going to cut out of this, as it’s becoming increasingly off-topic.

2009-11-06T08:15:42-08:00

true

1434814

143

63503

2009-11-06T08:15:42-08:00

303925