I agree. It is terrible when children are forced to follow a religion and if they don't, are abused until they do. It does have terrible consequences on their lives. All I was trying to say was that this doesn't happen with all families. But since you seem to understand that, I'll go ahead and drop that point now. P.S. "Brainwash" and "indoctrinate" are not the same words. All children, to some extent, are indoctrinated by their parent's beliefs. But that doesn't mean the child has been brainwashed. There's really no difference between free speech and hate. What these people are saying is terrible, and it's their opinion. "Equal" means that we, as human beings, have the same basic rights. It means that one man has the same rights as another. It has nothing to do with who is more "worthy" of being treated as a human being. And you say you would consider yourself more "worthy" than these people. You are essentially saying that you have more of a right to be human than these people do (whether that's what you think you mean or not, it's what you're saying). Who can decide that? I think these people are horrible. But what right do I have to decide that, because neither I nor anyone else likes them, they are less "worthy" of being human than I am? Uh...no...they're not illegal. Where did you hear that? They can be held legally responsible for their actions. However, they aren't always held responsible, and even when they are, they do not always lose in court. That probably ties into why they don't get fined. You think Westboro does not recieve animosity? They are not a well-liked group (More on that below). I'm also not sure whether it's true that they protest at the funerals of gay people. I know they do it to soldiers, but it's not because the soldiers are gay... Could you please show me evidence (a news article or something) that indicates they do that to gays as well? Just a note: why did you stick an "even" before "Obama's grandmother"? She is no more (or less) important than a soldier and or gay person. Thank you, I forgot to mention that: freedom of religion. But... what makes you think "tons of people" do not understand evolution? And, uh... if those kind of people are caught, they get arrested and their children are taken away from them. How is freedom of religion a way for people to get out of jail early? I know a couple people who are in 12 step programs, and the programs have helped them immensely. The programs also addresses the addictive personalities; it's something they discuss in every meeting. Blaming all of this on freedom of religion is a little strange... no offense... I'm sorry, but you really need to back off Christianity and realize that we (Christians) are not the problem. The "problem", if that's the word we're going to use instead of "explanation", is that everybody has equal rights, and that foul people are allowed to express their foul opinion. How do you know that we haven't tried to stand against them? Just because we can't stop them from doing whatever foul things they do doesn't mean we don't despise them with all our hearts. Nor does it keep us from trying to stop them. Do you actually know people who are trying to protect this group? Do you know anyone who says "They're Christians! It's our duty to protect them!" I sure don't. I do, however, know plenty of people (Christians and non-Christians alike!) who say the exact opposite thing. What are we... no, what is ANYONE supposed to do? Deny them their rights as human beings? Say, "I'm sorry, but because your opinion is evil and is causing damage, we can't allow you to express it anymore."? (FYI, you don't have to believe strictly in either evolution or that God created humans the way we are today. I, for example, believe that God created evolution. It's not one thing or the other.) May I ask you an honest question? Do you live in the United States? Neither Westboro nor the K.K.K. are well liked here. On the contrary, most people would like to get rid of them. Almost everybody, Christian or not, deeply despises them. This isn't about Christians protecting Christians; it's about us simply not being able to do anything about these people, because of their rights. Nobody's protecting them by saying "These people have rights!" Westboro and other hate groups are protected because the rights themselves simply exist. And for the record, I have not ever, ever, EVER met anyone, Christian or not, who has any desire to defend these people or their actions. Have you met anyone who does? And I don't think it would be any different if this group was from a different religion. Christianity has nothing to do with why these people still exist. Another question... could you name a few hate groups that have actually been broken up in the US? One more thing: it's not like there isn't any protection from these people for grieving families. I agree; violence is probably exactly what these people are looking for. But even when something like that happens, nothing can be done. I would too. My father is retired from the Navy and has risked his life a fair number of times in Iraq. If he had died in that war and these people came to the funeral saying that he deserved to die for being a soldier, I'd be so angry I wouldn't be able to see straight. Again, there is protection for the people at the funeral against these hate groups. Yes, when a person teaches their child to hate through religion, it is very wrong indeed, and of course abuse and brainwashing exists. But it's often not the case. And I really wish you'd lay off Christianity a little bit. Who says we insist these groups don't exist? Who says we deny that these things happen? Perhaps there are some who do, but I can tell you, they are very few and far between. No, "good" and "Christian" are not interchangeable. But many Christians do strive to do good. That is what we are taught. About "terrorist" and "Muslim"... they are not interchangeable either, but I will say that right now, the US is in the most danger from radical (note the word radical!) Muslims. But, no, certainly not every Muslim is a terrorist. By the way, there are plenty of people who would attack another person just because that person is Christian. There are also plenty of people who would not, and there are still more people who would celebrate the difference in religion, rather than just tolerate it. This goes for all belief systems, (including atheism) not just Christianity! In every belief system, there are extremists, there are celebrators, and there are tolerators. That's not solely a Christian thing. And it's not like all Christians are fanatics, or that we all think everybody's out to get us.
I try not to take things too seriously, but most of the time do anyway... I have a very serious approach to life in general lol. I also tend to see the bad side of things before the good. Like, if I'm going to go look at a house I'm interested in buying, I'm going to notice all the flaws and imperfections before all the wonderful things about the house. And no, in case you're wondering, I don't spend the majority of my time wringing my hands in despair or being gloomy XD I'm actually quite cheerful most of the time, despite all this seeming negativity.
I don't smoke and I never intend to. Smoking is not a good choice because of all the physical consequences it can have later on down the road, but I have nothing against smokers and wish them good luck if they are trying to quit. The only thing I have a problem is when smokers are inconsiderate about the people around them. I have asthma and have had extreme difficulty breathing on more than one occasion around smokers, and many of those times could have been prevented if the smoker had been a little more careful about where he smoked. But other than that, I don't have anything against smokers.
They didn't at first lol. I thought I could fool them, but my Mom has a way of finding these things out without me knowing XD. I got in a little trouble, but we talked it over and decided I could keep the account, as long as I asked her before making accounts on any other websites.
Yes, those people are horrible. But they exist and are tolerated for the same reason the K.K.K. is tolerated: the First Amendment. It only guarantees free speech; it does not guarantee intelligent or good speech. As terrible as what they're saying is, it is political speech, and you have to be very careful about that. But I have to disagree with you on the theistic and brainwashing bit. I know some families who are separated by religion and they are perfectly happy. There is one family I am very close to whose child wants to take a different path than her parents religion-wise. They are completely supportive of her doing this. I know of plenty of cases in which children are not told, "You'd better believe in this or else!"
XD It took me three tries to get this post up. Thank goodness it worked this time around, I don't know if I'd have the patience to do it again lol. Back on topic... No, laws don't completely eliminate problems. But no laws will be perfect (just as no people will be perfect). And eliminating laws will not eliminate human nature, which is what laws are borne from. Federalist #51: "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Yes, society does allow for the possibility. I'm not denying that. But how does that make it society's fault that people choose prostitution? "Because it's there" is not a way to pass the blame. If they choose to because they want to (for whatever bizarre reason they may have) then that's not society's fault either. But that's what we are discussing, is it not? Whether prostitution is right or wrong? No prostitute is forced to be a prostitute. They did it of their own free will. Now, they may feel like they were forced, but they were not. Prostitution is almost never the only option someone has. And if they want to do it, then that's immoral. Society did not "influence" that person to choose prostitution; they chose it of their own free will. If they don't think it's immoral, that doesn't change the fact that it is. But someone feeling forced or not knowing any better doesn't mean we can pass the blame to society. I'm not denying that we make prostitution available, but that doesn't make it society's fault that people choose it. The only time prostitution is ever forced is in cases of labor (for instance, selling a child into prostitution). But that's often not the case. Just because a woman will "resort" to something doesn't mean it's okay (and it doesn't mean it's society's fault either). Stealing is still wrong, even if no money is involved. Let's pretend no money is needed to buy things; you can just go pick up whatever you want for no cost. Suppose you get a really nice gift (it was free, of course, but still very nice) and that it was from someone you really cared about. If someone stole it because they wanted it (perhaps it was out of stock at the store/car shop/wherever the gift came from, or they don't have access to it for some reason), then that would really hurt the person who was stolen from. And even if it wasn't anything special and didn't mean a whole lot to the person you stole from, it still doesn't belong to the thief, so it's still wrong. Yes, although many problems would be eliminated by getting rid of our need for money (I'm not denying that either), many more problems would remain and be created, too. Allow me a question: why do you think money was created in the first place? "Bad" drugs are things like cocaine, heroine, etc. Illegal drugs that can caused collapsed veins, liver disease, and abscesses among other things (sheesh, it's a wonder anyone ever tries that stuff). Rereading my other post, I worded this incorrectly, but I actually meant that it was a bad choice because of the physical consequences, not because it was immoral. In other words, you said what I was trying to say :) I apologize for the confusion. However, I will say that illegal drugs can be (and quite often are) immoral, because of the damage they do to other people. Alcohol as well. What if a parent was drugged out or drunk half the time? What do you think that would do to the child? What about drunk driving? How many innocent people do you think have been killed out on the road by people who were drunk? I don't think it's so much of a standard people have, more of just whether something is right or wrong. Anyone could say that rape is horrible, but that doesn't make it so (NOT saying rape ISN'T horrible). Likewise, anyone could say rape isn't horrible, but that doesn't make it so. I think that reality and facts decide whether actions are right or wrong. For instance, rape is wrong because for one, you're forcing someone to do something they don't want to do, which isn't nice. Two, if the victim is young enough, the rapist will end up physically destroying the victim's body. Three, sex (especially when it's unwanted) can be very damaging emotionally when it's being used incorrectly, which it is here. The victim will be emotionally destroyed for quite some time, if not for the rest of their life. Four, all of the above is caused because someone is selfish enough to do this to another human being. The person who presents the most facts and evidence to back themselves up is right. Yes, if most everyone thought murder and rape were acceptable, then I would probably be sent to a mental asylum. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. The opinion of the majority of people does not decide whether something is good or bad. For example: hip-hop/rap. You can probably guess my opinion on rap, right? (I hope so, after all this discussion) I dislike it because a) the immense amount of foul language and b) quite a lot of rap describes men treating women like objects to be used for entertainment - either that, or they're about prostitution. Foul language is quite unnecessary in all situations, and women are not objects. They are just as human as men are, and there is really no difference between men and women except their sex and biological structure. So, rap is pretty immoral and wrong. But many, many people listen to it rather voraciously, and find it perfectly okay. Does that make it so? This is one of those times where I hope that I'm wrong. The murderer shouldn't be punished for taking the life of another human being? We should simply try to "fix" the problem by finding out what "allowed" for the murder and try to "solve" it? Did I get it wrong? Please tell me I misunderstood you... Not all evil or immoral acts are caused because the person was "influenced" to do whatever they did. Sometimes, people are just born with an evil streak and with no empathy. They may grow up having a wonderful childhood and still turn out just plain evil. Likewise, someone can have an absolutely horrible childhood and be good through-and-through. I've already addressed this above.
They are quite important. Not majorly, life-or-death important, but important nonetheless. First of all, they teach kids to dress responsibly later in life. If you show up for a job interview in spaghetti straps or with pants dragging around your ankles, chances are you will not get that job. But if that's what you've been wearing for years, then it will take you a bit to change your style (especially if you're obsessed with having the latest fashion of clothing). Second, school is a place for learning. Wearing revealing or obscene clothing will distract students from the real purpose of school, which is to learn new things. Students are more likely to be watching the girl next to them who's wearing approximately10 inches of clothing than paying attention to what they're supposed to be writing down or studying. Third, requiring all students to wear the same clothes eliminates all the "I can't believe she's wearing that!" crap. These days (ESPECIALLY in middle schools) kids focus more on what other kids are wearing than what they're supposed to be learning in class. It refocuses the students and takes off the pressure of always needing to have the absolute latest style of clothing. So, yes, they're important. The students themselves may not like them, but that's completely irrelevant to whether the uniforms are useful or not.
Definitely Zexion. He's my favorite by far out of those five. Although... I can't say I ever really thought of him as a rebel lol.
I was actually pretty disappointed with all the English voice-acting, save for Vexen. Zexion's is probably the worst, in my opinion. He just wasn't what I imagined him sounding like at all. I think maybe he sounds almost too old.
I wasn't mad at all lol. On the contrary, I was very happy because beating him meant I was that much closer to "completing" the game. I'm totally obsessed with finishing all the side quests in video games, including things like optional bosses. And I think (not sure) he was needed for Journal Completion anyway.
That's pretty funny! It was pretty clear to me he was I guy when I first saw him. He looked too manly for his hair to get in the way XD
In no particular order: Zexion, Demyx, Sephiroth, Terra, (this is for all the games, right?) and Xemnas.
Timeless River. The world itself was actually pretty cool and I enjoyed it, as long as the volume was turned all the way down. Stupid Monochrome Dreams made me want to put an axe through the television >.<
There aren't any characters I hate... however, I'd have to say that I don't like Xaldin very much. He just gets on my nerves. No clue why he does so, but he does :\
You appear to be correcting what I'm saying by restating everything I said and remaking all my points... Sex is sacred. All the examples you listed are just examples of teenage immaturity, as well as how sex should not be treated. Sex is quite special and is not thought of in any of the ways you listed by healthy, mature adults. And for sex just being reproduction... why do you think sex before marriage is a problem in the first place? Certainly not because a couple 16- or 17-year-olds are trying to have children. Um...because...I don't...want to? O.o That's a bit of an odd question... no offense... Age is rather irrelevant. An 11-year-old could know more about sex and be more mature about the whole thing than an 18-year-old. And no, I'm not 11-years-old in case what I said gave you that idea. Which information in particular is not factual? Of course you can date, it's the only way to even get to know someone. I never said you couldn't. Sex and date are not the same words, at all. Just because you date someone doesn't mean you have to have sex with them. And I might very well marry "that boy in my class that I like" someday. After we date for several years, get to really know each, and are both willing to commit ourselves to one another. Not because we've had sex and we each think the other is good at making hot love. Kissing is perfectly acceptable on a date. It doesn't even come close to being on the same level as sex. If you kiss someone on a date and end up breaking up with them, you will not be scarred emotionally for the rest of your life. If you have sex and break up, you very well could. Holding hands is fine too. I think someone's getting a little carried away... What makes you think either kissing or holding hands comes anywhere close to sex? FYI, this is not a discussion of religion.
I honestly don't know whether I love Axel or hate him. I used to think he was one of the coolest members of the Org., but after playing Re: CoM I'm not so sure. I don't understand why he killed Vexen (who in no way deserved to die) just so he wouldn't get found out - that's pretty selfish. And although he didn't directly kill Zexion, he was behind it. If those were the only times you would see Axel, then I' would definitely not like. But when you throw KH2 and Roxas into the mix, it just confuses things... Axel was the one who got rid of Marluxia because Marly was a traitor, but he refused to go after Roxas until Xaldin threatened to turn him into a Dusk... but it was also a little selfish that he did go after Roxas to save himself... Oh, I don't know. For now, I'll just say he's in the gray area.
I have actually wondered the same thing. But I think that Re: Chain of Memories is sort of a Final Mix for Chain of Memories, with all the new additions and such. So no, I don't think there will be an official Final Mix for Re: CoM.
Not a whole lot at the moment lol. How about you?
No, it is not. Sex does help the relationship, but I don't think that it would be much of a problem if you truly love the person. But, okay. Some couple does have sex before marriage, and they find they're not compatible? I believe I asked this before and never got a response from you (funny that): How does the couple feel? You think there are no feelings of regret? I really like how you quoted "much more magical and joyful experience" when that's not what I said. What I actually said was that sex would be more enjoyable for couples whose first time experiencing it is in marriage. I'm sure your authority is much better than mine *nodnod*. And how do you know I don't know anything about sex? I could day the same about you, but would that make it true? (not that it ISN'T be true >.>... but just my saying so doesn't make it true). Oh, okay. That really helps your case. Really proves that you're right, ya know? Makes me want to agree with you when you refuse to even tell me why something you said is true and makes you right. *shakes head* Wow. Did I EVER say no one should have sex? Did I EVER say sex was dirty or to never engage in it. No. I said to WAIT FOR MARRIAGE. I see nothing in the pdf. that contradicts ANYTHING that I was saying. And I don't see anything in the Planned Parenthood article that contradicts me, either. What the hell does HIV prevention have to do with what I was saying about divorces? I am not arguing about Abstinence-only vs. other forms of sex education. Nor do I AGREE with Abstinence only. You are making assumptions about me again and it's getting annoying. I suggest you stop. Oh, and since you still seem interested in contradicting me on this subject (which I must say you haven't done a very good job of as of yet) I will assume you would like me to provide more evidence that supports what I was saying. Happy reading! http://www.new-life.net/faq605.htm http://www.choicesaz.org/sexual_health/reasons_to_wait/ Please tell me if you'd like more evidence backing me up. And next time you show evidence backing you up, make sure it actually does back you up, okay? Uh-huh... the problem? Okay... the problem? And wasn't one of your earlier points about how Christians lie about their decisions because that decision fit in with their lifestyle? Hmmm... I sense inconsistency. Especially if these songs are so influential that they're a problem, right? Whoa! HOLD up! How do you figure that?! I have NEVER sung a hymn or even just a regular Christian song that teaches me to stone sinners. Everyone sins, Christian or not, (that's what human imperfection is all about) and if we were taught to stone sinners, we'd all end up just killing each other. And I have never heard a Christian song that says there should be no war. Would you mind listing some examples? *laughs* This is getting better and better... Those are known as extremist acts, performed by groups of people known as extremists. They do not fit in with the vast majority of Christian theology (as a matter of fact, they contradict it). There are extremists in all belief systems, including those that do not teach/are against religion. Have you not ever seen the protests that want Christmas to be taken off the calendar as a holiday ad who don't want any discussion of religion in public schools? I could be wrong, but you appear to be under a misconception that Christians follow the Bible and do what it says because "God says so". We follow His word not because he orders us to, but because of His reasons as to why He says the things He does. We, Christians, agree with Him. So, we listen to Him. Just a note, in case that was your mindset. No, I would not. Many people I know would not. Again with the assumptions. Do you think people who aren't religious don't feel guilty about their decisions? You think they never lie about things like that?
It took me about two months to beat KH. But that's only because of Wonderland and Hollow Bastion. It took me an embarrassingly long tim to figure out how to get to the court in Wonderland (can't remember what it's called... Queen's something.) And although Hollow Bastion itself wasn't hard, I did have a bit of difficulty with Dragon Maleficent and the second Dark Riku battle.
