metadigital

If you have Believe me, running around asking them all will keep you busy (no pun intended). As for armour upgrades specifically, you'll need to get " After that you'll need to get supplies ...

So, uh, that wasn't joke? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which bit didn't you understand?

I think you'll find that most of the fans of D&D like the fact that it is a consistent ruleset (and implicitly they have memorized all the best ways to use it). It's true the plot should be intriguing on its own, though.

You mean YOU HAVE ALREADY JOINED FakeMySpace.com ?!?!?one!!111!!

As Mortis quite rightly said, a metaphysical judge is merely a control mechanism of fear. As for Glaucon (ah, the anecdote as argument: gotta love it), I'll see your Gyges Ring and raise you a Cincinnatus, the Roman General who acted asbsolute dictator of the Roman Empire for sixteen days, before retiring to his farm again, and then taking up the mantle of dictator again to put down a revolt and retire AGAIN. It seems to me that your "simple" shepherd's story is far from it; there are many complexities, such as the behaviour of the King (and Queen) and the plight of a shepherd in that society. (Aside: what sort of queen would collude with some dirty shepherd who just happened to have a magic ring? Quite an infantile treatment of marriage and the usual demotion of a female character in "of their time" literature. I'd expect my wife to act towards me as I would to her: with respect and love.) You are just citing Adler (struggle for power is the root of all problems).

So a bunch of games developed for a static platform will DEMAND upgraded specs on a PC? I'm playing NwN2 on a three year old laptop; the only imperative to upgrade remains personal whim.

It's a good thing they wrote that urban dictionary in the last decade, then. ^_^

Well, so much for staying execution on this thread.

Not that I've noticed. I tried to change a rogue into a Duelist, and a fighter into a Weapons Master, with no success. :|

Welcome. Check out Lady Crimson's forum resources for such things as Reven heads.

The question is, will Teeth's boss be sufficiently embarassed by his drunken performance in the morning?

It wasn't a film, it was a religio-political statement.

That's actually good advice. One should get up and take a break every hour or so: stretch and give the mind a small break, too. This helps to re-focus.

Your argument was about the legitimacy of drug laws in reference to their efficacy. That drug laws were wrong wasn't the issue, it was that they were ineffective. That drug laws harm the innocent is irrelevant to the argument that they fail as a deterrent, and that the laws fail as a deterrent is insufficient argument to conclude that those laws should not be in place, as evidenced by the murder analogy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. My argument was about the efficacy of the law that dealt with a reduction of personal freedoms (however valid). Don't try to reduce my argument to absurdity: the whole point is that the law won't work because it will ALWAYS have individuals against it. Whereas (apart from tarna and a few others) the vast majority of people do not support murder.

What I understood from the book and the movie(they're the same) is that the bloodline would mean another Church entirely, another branch of christianity or something, like Catholiticism, Protestantism, etc and there would be, I guess, Jesusism or something. But the Church has built itself on the premise that Jesus is God or its son and Jesus having a family and descendants would debunk all of this, essentially destroying The Church. Meh. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Masons already believe in this, they have their own Bible and lore.

Except that murder is a act against someone else in the society, and therefore must be fought against. Whereas drug taking only affects the individual, except currently, where the illegality of the process causes more, innocent other members of society to be affected.

Humanists act in an ethical manner not because of some mythical afterlife punishment, but because they believe in it. In fact, you could argue that it is a weaker form of ethics that requires a punishment: people don't really want to act ethically, and wouldn't, if they didn't think they would be punished for not acting so.

Er, what? 1) How do you know it didnt effect peoples habits? Lets say hypothetically I couldnt find a bag of weed to buy because the shipment intended for Chicago was intercepted and the dealer didnt have any. I guess I wouldnt be smoking any until that status changed. 2) I wouldnt call having 9.25 Mkgs less drugs on the street a "failure". Not to mention whatever peeps were also rounded up in those cases. Why does it have to be all or nothing to be a success? Since there are still some drugs available it must be a total failure and we can give up and legalize everything? Thats akin to saying "Well, that guy got killed in the car accident while he was wearing his seatbelt. Might as well throw out that mandatory seatbelt law because its a failure." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because I don't know one person who has trouble finding drugs if they want them. That's failure. And it is a foregone conclusion, just like prohibition didn't stop the speakeasies. And how much of the tax dollars of society do you want to spend stopping drugs? How much of that could be spent on youth education, etc?

Alex got tarna's joke (she told me); she is not so pleased with the welcome that the other forumites gave her. The people responsible have been given warnings and moderated status. Really, I would expect people to show a minimum level of decorum here. Or do you want to endlessly talk about the same things, with people endlessly reciting their staid opinions over and over again. ("Fallout 3 will be Fallout in name only." etcetra ad nauseam.)

OH NOES! Destroyed by teh Futurama!

Not necessarily. you are making some crude generalisations there. Jung, for example, beleived that God (and he believed in God) had to evolve with humanity, as humanity evolved. whether he was right about God being linked to the collective unconscious (or even if we can understand what he meant by the coolective unconscious). Also, some people hold that there are universal truths (read definitions for evil), and they do not require a god.

Thanks for the business ethics course, Withrik!

I'll be one for free.

And what about Jung's personal and collective unconsciouses? The truth will out! Acausal parrallelism FTW! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I remember thinking Jung was a crackpot when we studied him in my psych classes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He may be crazy, but he also managed to

Bargain!