|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Picks up YD by one leg ... Smashes him into the floor a few time.. PUNY DINGO!!!!! 
Marriage is a state issue not federal. Civil rights are a human issue. Individual states do not get to legislate human rights into non-existence. That's why they're called rights. 
The likelihood that some 'fact' is wrong increases with the number of people who believe its true. So God most likely does not exist? Or could it be that the likelihood and prevailance of belief are independent of one another?
I've noticed quite a lot of harsh and disrespectful language directed toward the Paizo staff as of late, so I just wanted to take the time give Paizo some well-deserved thanks. Speaking for myself and those I play with, we all absolutely love the work you've put into Pathfinder. All of us find interesting characters to play, and though we have noticed some imbalance occasionally, it is never enough to affect the game negatively and is usually circumstantial anyway. And besides, anything we find to be wrong, we can always houserule anyway! I can't claim to understand how difficult it is to put out as much material as you at Paizo do throughout the year, but I imagine it is a ton of work. And you deserve more credit than you have been given recently. So thank you! And remember that the vast majority of us love what you are doing, we just aren't as vocal about it!
Even something as simple as a group of tribal elders whose words hold sway over the wandering tribe qualifies as government. We're arguing on the internet. We were never close to winning to begin with.
Belief that God does not exist is a belief about God. Only if you use "belief" in the broadest possible sense. I'm an atheist, but I don't "believe" there's no God -- I provisionally accept it as a null hypothesis until a preponderance evidence supporting one comes to light. So far that hasn't happened. 
It's our fault for hitting their fists with our faces again and again and again. Everyone knows that.
If you were able to find any example of a country with universal health care filled with people who thought it was a terrible idea, that would be one thing. But you can't. All the countries that have it love it. You're trying to attack a very complex issue with "But government!" Meanwhile, the people you're arguing against have actual evidence. 
The child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes was not the reason he was naked. 
I'd say I'm happy for you, but in truth, I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we all hate/are jealous of you. Congrats Daigle! 
Lack of spare time and imagination + laziness = premade modules and APs are cool. 
You cannot compare civil rights and womans suffrage to same gender marriage b/c and . Disclaimer: The bold and font sizes are my emphasis. Ah, defending your position with Leviticus 18:22 using the "it's condemned in the bible, so I condemn it too" position. I tend to avoid this direction of discussion ... but since you opened that door, I ask that the court allow a little latitude on what I'm going to say below. Let's take a stroll.
But why stop there? What else is considered sinful? Let's see.
But let's get back to Leviticus. It's a holiness code that was written over three millennia ago that also includes prohibitions against:
Don't get me wrong; morality is important. Morality is what one should be doing that is right regardless of whatever I am told. Whereas in some religions, this sometimes come across being told what to do regardless of whether it's right. You're welcome to your own interpretations of the bible and its politics, but I believe that some of us can come to a justified moral conclusion in lieu of a book which instructs us to adhere. So, I have to ask? Are you all-in? Or do you choose to follow certain moral conducts and disregard the other ones? I seriously cannot imagine you to be a modern-day Nazirite. EDIT: Makes me feel relieved that when I bought the Paizo Golem Limited Edition T-Shirt back in April 2010 that it was made with 100% cotton. I don't expect to change your opinion whatsoever. Nor is it my concern about "winning the Internet because someone. is. wrong." But if you're going to use a certain source as a reason for your condemnation, please make sure that it's a blanket condemnation and not something you can pick and choose because it's exegetically convenient for you. And with that conclusion, it's time for me to resume surfing the Internet for my prime directive: invoking Rule 34. Ciao! =)
WE THE PEOPLE of California already did when then voted in strong numbers to make prop 8 law, all this does is invalidate the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. GOOD. We the people do not have the right to tyrannize the minority. The people cannot strip rights away. That's why they're called rights. You don't get to vote on them. You just have them. Forever. I voted for prop 8 because I voted for anything and everything anti-democrat party in 2008. I knew Obummer was going to win, so in effect my vote was a protest vote since to me gays = another subset of democrats. This is really, really pathetic. You voted to strip a group of people of some basic human rights because you imagined that they might be affiliated with a political party you hate with a burning passion. I want you to, for a second, imagine that someone did this to you. Think of a basic right that you enjoy, and then imagine that someone voted to strip you of that right because they suspected you might be Republican. Can you imagine how you would react to that? You did a g~$*@+n monstrous thing. I don't care if "in hindsight" you would have voted not to strip rights. You are so staunchly at war with a political party that you can't think straight. A political party which, let's face it, has a ton-and-a-half more going for it than the Republican party does. 
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
Has Pax' life become so lacking in relevant examples, that he has to really work this hard, to twist any and every passing comment he hears into a false dichotomy between 'true ROLE-players' and 'dirty ROLL-players'? 
Everything is political. It would be equally political to deliberately NOT include homosexuals or other minorities. 
WOW! WOW! I just got a gift certificate from a fellow board member! I just have to say As a full-time student with a fixed budget, I have to say, you've just made my week! My month, even! It would have taken me that long (or longer) to justify the replacement purchase! That's a hell of a thing to do for a complete stranger, I hope the favor returns to you threefold! 
Real world religion tangent spoilered;
Spoiler:
Religion, as support for gender or sexuality intolerance, IMO, is an excuse. The real factors are power and control and fear of 'the other.'
The Bible, thumped as an excuse for all sorts of intolerance, has hundreds of passages that focus on distribution of wealth, on greed being bad, on the pursuit of money being a spiritual trap that will lock one out of heaven, on temples becoming corrupted if they allow matters of money to supplant those of faith, etc., etc. And it's got a passage somewhere that says that members of a specific Jewish tribe couldn't have a man in their marriage bed 2000 years ago, but that rule only ever applied to them, and was replaced with the new covenent 20 centuries ago anyway, and so hasn't specifically applied to anyone *for millenia.* It's not 'religion' that maintains any sort of gender or sexuality based discrimination, it's tradition. (Just as the burqa has nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with Arab tradition. Indeed, more Muslim countries outlaw the burqa than require it, and more Muslim countries *than Christian countries* have outlawed the burqa.) It's easy to blame a faith on the behaviors of jerks who are exploiting it (and, most commonly, blatantly distorting it's message) to maintain their own status quo. Fear of change, fear of new things, fear of losing control, all lie at the root of these sorts of things, IMO. Fear of 'the other' used to be a survival trait. If someone came into your village and they were babbling nonsense, they might be insane, feverish or dangerous, they might be bringing a sickness or contagion into the place where your family lives. If someone's skin was the wrong color, again, they could be carrying a sickness, or be pale from blood loss (and pursued by a dangerous animal that is stalking them). Drive them away, for the safety of your family and community. Unrecognized behaviors became taboos or shibboleths, used to identify people who might not be safe. Some remained fearful and came up with ever more ways to identify 'the other,' including such fanciful things as witches marks, while others societies, forced into close quarters with 'the other,' by expansion and development, slowly had to become ever more accepting of differences. And some religions actually jumped on that bandwagon, preaching that one should 'fear no evil' and 'turn the other cheek' and be all accepting and tolerant and whatever. Some embraced the lessons of 'fear no evil.' Some continued to hide behind 'tradition' and claimed that accepting new things was a sign of being tempted into wickedness or 'corruption.' You can cherry pick (or flat-out distort) the teachings of almost any religion to support a message of fear and intolerance. You can also choose to read the 23rd Psalm and find a message that the faithful should not know fear (and certainly shouldn't abandon the teachings of their faith to take action based on those fears), even staring down a gun, or 'in the valley of the shadow of death.' And the sweet irony is that fear is stupid. If gay people were encouraged to be out in the open, and not pushed into hiding, they'd be much less 'scary.' What's more scary, a pair of dudes walking hand in hand on the sidewalk, or the uncertainty that your best friend, your spouse or one of your kids might be gay *and you'll never know.* What we see every day is never so scary as what *could* be out there. People who feel threatened by stuff like gays have done a bang-up job of creating a world that must be utterly terrifying to them. It must be emotionally exhausting, working so hard to keep themselves scared all the time. @Matt Morris
In any event, in a fantasy setting like Golarion, where the gods answer divinations, or can send angels or devils to correct 'misinterpretations' of faith (or flat-out heresies) that they find objectionable, that sort of stuff isn't going to last long. Calistria might find it necessary to occasionally administer a 'course correction' to an overzealous priestess who gets a bit too much into the 'all men are scum and deserve to be punished' mindset, and creates a situation where women are being hurt and vilified in retaliation for her over-the-top actions. Erastil might similarly have to arrange some 'ill omens' (or perhaps even a Hound thereof) if one of his clerics helps drag some young women home after they ran away from an oppressive father who was about to marry them off to older men to secure economic advantage for himself. Yes, Erastil prefers a young lady *and a young man* to settle down, rather than go adventuring, but he is lawful good, and not likely to be a fan of children being sold off to fatten their daddy's purse. Indeed, either of those situations, or similar ones involving other clergy, could make intereting plot seeds. A party with an Erastilian cleric or ranger or paladin might be sent to track down a young woman, characterized as having been seduced into fleeing their wedding days by a sinister cult or Varisian enchanter of dubious character, only to have the 'young woman' (who turns out to be thirteen) explain that her 'fiance' is thirty years older than herself, and head of a local lumber consortium that her father wants to secure business with. Similarly, a party with a Calistrian cleric might stumble upon a village in the middle of a gender war, as the Calistrian priestess mentioned above has taken to harshly and publically punishing men for 'offenses against women,' with ever more creative punishments and ever flimsy 'offenses.' The Calistrian cleric might find herself nodding in approval, until she realizes how out of control the situation has gotten, turning into a 'Crucible' situation, with the townspeople turning on each other and false accusations and whatnot threatening to end in a massive riot and many innocent people killed. The Calistrian cleric might even receive signs and omens that she has been called here to deal with this problem, before it turns into a bloodbath, and many women suffer for the priestesses over-reactions (the priestess may have already lost her powers, but that doesn't change her Diplomacy score, or her hold on the people who are supporting her...). 
You know what, I think parody threads aren't really a good idea anymore. Can we not do this? 
I was looking for a name for next session's NPC hero. He will be Q'Oshea, a proud kobold freedom fighter. 
You earlier asked me which came first (birds or mammals), now you changed it to flying animals or land animals. Both questions are irrelevant. I already told you I'm not religious. He's trying to prove that the Bible is false because of Genesis 1. Kind of poor logic -- especially since he doesn't see the "point" of Genesis 1. As a counter -- I have science textbooks that are wrong. Therefore science is wrong?
Songs and poems typically have a point -- but generally not to be scientific. Amen. The thing is, there is a not-inconsiderable proportion of U.S. citizens who believe that every word written is literal fact, in any way they choose to interpret it whatsoever. To the extent that acceptance of evolution here (more or less settled fact, scientifically) is a minority proposition. Which means that, when dicussing Biblical interpretations, sane and intelligent ones like yours -- while in a majority worldwide -- are not necessarily so here in the U.S. of A. 
It's settled, then. And if we don't end up in Heaven (this includes either another plane of afterlife existence -not the Fleshwarrens, please, not the Fleshwarrens!- or the immanent void), I'll figure out how to buy you a drink.
And I've long since determined that trying to prove His existence is equally impossible, and a good way to get people angry at each other. To Caesar what is Caesar's, to God what is God's. You'd be surprised how often we atheists (sorry -- agnostics :P) get "God exists unless you can prove otherwise." Aye, and I understand how frustrating it can be to argue under such impossible conditions. I strongly believe that we Christians don't have to waste time in trying to prove that God exists; that's kind of missing the whole point. Expanding the faith is about setting examples, not setting arguments. As the old saying goes, "Spread the Good Word at all times. And, only if necessary, use words".
Psychological impacts of a belief in a higher power have been studied by scientists and a lot of them have been useful (such as with pain management). Wait -- I thought your claim was that all science is merely fiction? Shouldn't you refrain from citing it, then? Also, I personally get the same pain management effects from meditation -- and a community can get the social benefits you mention from secular gatherings, causes, and such -- so the case that non-supernatural solutions are worse than supernatural ones kind of falls apart there. -- Overall, I feel that science provides us with tangible benefits. You have shown that churches can, too. Why can't we have both sets of benefits? Trying to replace science with the least useful parts of church doctrine doesn't help anything, and trying to use science to investigate God seems to me to be a waste of time.
"Close enough for horse shoes and hand grenades" is also called "a useful fiction". Which raises the question, "Should we focus on 'useful', 'fiction', or both?" Semantics, at that point. Does your automobile work? Do nuclear reactors generate electricity? At that point I'll stick with "useful" and let you theology types debate matters of Truth. 
It's only two-weapon fighting if you are trying to get the extra attack from it. 
i don't get why people see D&D or it's derivatives as medieval european. you have medieval knights wearing rennaiscane era armor, wielding roman era falcatas, worshipping greek gods, traveling with native american shamans wearing the hides of saharan beasts, who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs who are accompanied by modern japanese schoolgirls wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho and Wearing black pajamas, and old men wearing robes and pointed hats who chant mathematical equations to control reality, on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient firebreathing spellcasting reptiles and sentient jello.
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
Also the email is great for letting everyone know what is coming, but not everyone checks their emails regularly. Some people (like me) have an email that is used for work, and part of my job is to stay on top of it. I use a second email for other stuff. I check my work email so often, that it habit, but not so with my others. I have to stop and go to another page to check it, and sometimes I don't think of it for a few weeks. it take a secondary importance. I once forgot to check my email for a few days, and I missed out on the chance to claim £250,000.00 from the Finance Minister of Nigeria. I won't be making THAT mistake again, I'll tell you. 
Gary: also i note that the practice of whoring for favorites by quoting me in the overheard at paizo thread continues unabated ... Gary: this pleases me ... Gary: however, please note that favorites royalties may be requested at some point
Gary: Also, I bet I haz moar favorites than anybody! Sara Marie: How about in ratio to how many posts they've made? Gary: pfft Gary: Note that mine goes to 3 pages! Sara Marie: I need numbers! Gary: Someday I'll get around to making a "popular favorites" page or something... that's where I'm a viking! Sara: Gary has 104 pages of comments with 3 pages of favorites. Gary: Math is no use to you here! Sara: I have 33 pages of comments with one page of favorites. And its not the number of individual posts that are favorited, its the number of favorites TOTAL! Gary: k fine sara: Because some of my comments have lots of favorites. Gary: Yeah, those are the ones that are quotes from me! Gary: favorites for posts created by me: 382
Sara: Gary's ratio is 13.513089
Crystal: No love for sara :( Well... 50% love for Sara Gary: To be fair, her posts are all business. My posts are all about whoring for favorites. Sara: Gary wins. Time for me to go favorite whoring! Sara: 
No, not through legislation. Just by convincing him that he's damned and socially isolating him and driving him to deny what he is and pretend to be something he's not. The high suicide rate among homosexual teens is not due to legislation and it's not do to some innate flaw or weakness in gay people, it's due to hatred and social isolation and religion plays a huge role in that. I chose to add the legislation bit becasue I feel that's how most Christians passive/aggressively persecute gay people, when they have absolutely no right to do so, and aren't supposed to. Personal story:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
