213374U

Funny that you would think that my comment was directed at you... I wonder why you did.

Er, contrary to what you seem to think, SPAM is *not* funny, and it tends to decrease people's interest in spammed boards and posts by habitual spammers.

Yeah, I believe that, too. This is not like MMORPGs where it really pays to pretend you're female.

I think you are right. I remember watching a documentary about it in which there were some experiments with people. I believe that at the end, that was like 11 days of sleep deprivation, the subjects were seriously affected. For instance, they made one of the subjects watch a movie, after which he was made some questions. The poor sod did not only not remember the movie, but he invented random stuff about it, and seemed pretty convinced. Long-term memory and time notion problems seemed to appear too, to the extent of not being able to even remember the month, let alone the day. Not to mention the decrease in hand-eye coordination and reflexes. Pretty damn hilarious if you ask me.

Everyone knows I come here for the sole purpose of unveiling the true secrets of existence to all of you, poor, benighted souls.

"yIHarQo'! nepwI' ghaH!" (Do not believe him! He's a liar!)

It doesn't.

I wish I could sleep *less* than 10 hours. But once your body becomes used to it, it's hard as hell to shake the habit.

That's so cynical, even for you. And now PLEASE. How bad are the spoilers for this game?

Yep. For some reason I have trouble picturing a quadriplegic being forced to work.

"It's reassuring to see that despite the ignorant stance of the majority, some people haven't fully forsaken craniometry and the undeniable truth contained therein"

Spoilers?

I don't. If it actually reduced the price of the final product, it would be ok. But it doesn't. The devs are just cutting the publisher and the rest of middle men from the loop, only to get a larger piece of the cake for themselves. Nothing wrong with that, of course, after all it's a capitalist system we're working with. But if it causes me any sort of annoyance that the standard form of retail, for the same price, as a good capitalist customer I'm just not going to support it.

Yes, that's the atheists' magic wand, isn't it? Unfortunately, that's a non sequitur fallacy inconsistent with Occam's Razor. If it wasn't, the existence of God would be already disproved. Forgive my skepticism, but I don't think you can succeed where all those great philosophers and theologists have failed. Anyone said arrogance? Ignoring all the particular myths, it is not against Occam's razor to assume that, in order to explain the inner workings of reality, something had to assemble reality for it to be so... rational. The other alternative to that is the idea of the multiverses, an infinity of realities each with a random set of rules. It is logical to think that in a reality with random rules, it would be hard for life to prosper to a point in which it could question these things. So, again, we must assume that we are living in the one universe that, due to the randomness of that multiverse has a set of rules that has allowed life to exist. As you see, in either case you need to introduce entities in order to explain reality. However, you just choose to dismiss the one theory that doesn't suit your purposes. It is simply aburd to think that our single universe has existed forever along with the rules that govern it. Because, for starters, it hasn't. The universe is thought to have begun as a quantum fluctuation, whatever the hell that means. So, yeah.

Your analogy is flawed. You didn't go to nightclubs that were "immersed in the gay scene" while you were a child. Thus, you weren't impressed in the same way a child would be. And while I don't see homosexuality as a "disease" (thank you for yet another delightful attempt at putting me down as an homophobe), I think that children should be allowed to have clear, traditional, distinguished sexual roles in order to develop their sexual identity in a normal manner. And since a great deal of homosexuals were born in and raised by heterosexual couples, this is not an argument against homosexuality, nor an attempt to "contain" it. So spare me the demagogy. Following that definition, a parent who spent no time with their children but had plenty of resources to ensure their welfare would be a good parent. Another flawed analogy. Medications are tested on a wide variety of animals, ranging from rats to chimpanzees, before it's safe to test them on human beings. And, at any rate, those upon which the medications are tested are adult, willing individuals. A rather blatant attempt to induce a logical fallacy. For starters, I have never denied that. And while many heterosexual parents are poor parents, the opposite isn't necessarily true. So, your point is?

Turn the argument around, and answer your own question, if you can.

Alas, overzeal is not exclusive to religious fundamentalists.

No. There's no assumption behind that approach. However, we don't know if a gay couple (be it male or female) can provide the same psychological imprints than a heterosexual one can (I have my doubts regarding sexual roles, but anyway). And since we don't know, I don't think it would be fair to the adoptee to just "try and see if it works" only to satisfy the adoptants. Obviously, the ability to procreate has no direct relation to the ability to raise children, as is proven by the fact that many otherwise normal heterosexual couples are unable to conceive due to sterility issues. But, it is not less true that it is an unnatural (as in impossible by natural means) and anomalous situation for a child to have both parents of the same gender. So far, the possible repercussions of this are not fully known. But the state's duty is to protect the rights of the weakest, in this case, the child. No. Don't try to twist my words unless it's a flame war you're after. If it sounds reasonable and you find yourself unable to refute the arguments, then perhaps it not only sounds reasonable, but it is. As I said, in an adoption case, the adoptee's welfare overrules any other concerns, including the would-be adoptants' right. And while I'm all for an equality legislation, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of putting that equality before all other considerations.

Not while I'm able to post! That's quite false. Science is built on evidences and logic while religion is built on superstitions and unproven speculations. Drakron isn't a believer - he only embraces facts. Was that even directed at you, dumbass? Perhaps you should read the original post to which that reply was directed at, instead of cherry picking my posts, and twisting them out of their original context. When people cling to evolutionism as the only true explanation for life as we know it, they are assuming that evolutionism is correct. Which we don't know for sure because evolutionism is a theory, and not a law. Therefore, evolutionism is another belief, plain and simple. Well, in that case, the adoptee's welfare is the primary concern. Hence, and until clear evidence is presented to support the idea that couples of the same gender can provide the same as any heterosexual couple, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, or at least, have less priority. Just to be on the safe side, because since children cannot be naturally born in a gay couple, it is at the very least an anomalous situation.

If you ban something, you are 'intolerant' to it. Your statement is ridiculous. People like you are the most intolerant...right up there with the fringe-right Christians in the USA. LOL. Hey Nur, there's somebody here that wants to have a word with you...

"Ah, that's what you think, my boy, that's what you think"

Um, yes, there should be, as there is.

That's not a matter of applying our notions to a historical context in which the social values were completely different. It is a widely accepted fact that when children are exposed to sex, it leaves serious psychological sequels that last for their entire life. Homosexuality, as far as I know, does not. You know I had the exact same opinion when I was twelve .. Well, he is twelve, and has proven so countless times. What did you expect?