Profile for Drew

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Your favorite video game company in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, June 27 2006 05:19 Profile #22
"video game company" is a little vague.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Your favorite video game company in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, June 27 2006 04:00 Profile #19
Darklands was great! Space Quest was impossible.

TM, do you really think Square-Enix has gone off in so different a direction? I'm certain that X-2 was in the pipeline well before they merged, and it seems to me that the company's current direction is still profoundly Square-ish - they just wanted Enix's name and titles. Also, Square has released a lot of dross for all the gems it's produced...

My order would be I, VI, VII, X, IX, IV, V, III, II, VIII. I also did enjoy X-2, and FFT, though very different, is an excellent game.

[ Tuesday, June 27, 2006 04:07: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Your favorite video game company in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, June 26 2006 10:03 Profile #5
For game developers, I have predominantly enjoyed games published by Blizzard, BioWare, and the creative forces behind the former BlackIsle Studios/now (mostly) Obsidian Entertainment.

Regarding consoles, I probably have enjoyed the PS2 most for sheer volume of titles as well as access to SquareEnix's games, but for sheer quality, I have to go for games developed for Nintendo. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time remains my favorite game ever, and the Metroid series, including the Metroid Primes, are very high quality, too.

I also really enjoyed Silicon Knights' Eternal Darkness for Gamecube, and I am sad that they never released a sequel. :(

[ Monday, June 26, 2006 10:03: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Anonymity and online identity, yet again. in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, June 26 2006 09:56 Profile #65
Holy smokes! Hello, Stug - it's been quite a while. I hope life finds you well. :)
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, June 26 2006 09:52 Profile #129
Meeshka, you said:

"If you don't pay attention to your neighbour now, it will be too late when he sneaks upon your dog's crap suddenly one day, so you won't be able to clear it yourself. So you will be accused of, firstly, for not clearing after your dog, and secondly, for intoxicating your neighbour if something happens to him. Did I answer your question?"

Using this analogy, you imply that legalization of gay marriage will create an undesirable externality for everyone else. I merely am asking you: what logical negative externalities can you think of that could come from the legalization of gay marriage?

Because essentially, you are saying "we shouldn't be so quick to allow X, because X could be bad even though I posit no reason why," and that assertion carries no water.

[ Monday, June 26, 2006 09:57: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, June 26 2006 09:45 Profile #127
quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

What is "detalisation," just out of curiosity?
= "in detail"
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, June 26 2006 05:45 Profile #122
What "problem" could legalized gay marriage possibly cause for you? In what way could it possibly be "too late" once gay marriage is legalized?

Frankly, I agree with Thuryl.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Ghana knock US out of World Cup in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Thursday, June 22 2006 09:34 Profile #6
33 runs! Wow - even the Nats have a better defense than that.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Thursday, June 22 2006 09:32 Profile #100
As have the UUs, and actually several Baptist churches even, though this largely depends on the particular church.

I think it will take a sea-change in public opinion (which is slowly happening) as well as probably some controversial Supreme Court ruling, before gay marriages are legally recognized, or at least the prevention of them is ruled unconsititutional.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 15:36 Profile #78
Alright, I apologize for the blanket assertion - I hereby qualify it by inserting "for purposes of legal recognition."

As for polygamy, I don't necessarily disprove of it, provided that it doesn't limit the rights of women in any way.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 15:32 Profile #76
quote:
Originally written by PoD person:

Gays and the other backers of gay marriage would like to use the government to pass a law in contradiction to that precept. In my opinion, this amounts to a symbolic statement of "#$%^ you, your institution is backwards and immoral." Of course, the religious counterpart of prohibiting gay marriage also amounts to "#$%^ you, your way of life is disgusting and immoral." In my opinion, government should not be used to say "#$%^ you" to anyone, no matter how much those damn fundies or those damn gays need a(n) "#$%^ you..."
The only trouble is, religious conservatives have been using the government for purposes of saying "#$%^ you, your way of life is disgusting and immoral," when in theory, religions should have no constitutional feet to stand on.

Perhaps fear and hate are strong, but it evokes a visceral response from me because these homosexuals are hurting no one. Nevertheless, these fundy religious groups are treating the word "marriage" proprietarily, essentially making it the water fountain for "whites only" from the pre-civil rights era; an ugly image, to be certain.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 15:34: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 15:13 Profile #71
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Yes, I am offended, and I should not have to "prove" my motives. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Well then, what are your motives for opposing gay marriage? There's always some motive underlying "I think X is wrong," or "I think Y is right." There's always a "because." What's your "because"?

EDIT: Note that in my original statement, I did not assign this view necessarily to Christians. I know many Christians that believe it should be legal, and I even know fundamentalist Christians who, despite being against gay marriage as a matter of religious principle, nevertheless recognize that the law of the state is separate from their beliefs, and that homosexuals should under the law of the state be entitled to the same rights.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 15:18: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Are you now or have you ever been ... in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 15:08 Profile #28
Hey, they're more entertaining than LD debators. :)
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 14:55 Profile #69
It's just my opinion, Ash, and you're free to contest it. Are you offended? Can you prove that your opposition to gay marriage is truly motivated by anything else?

It's all well and good that you dislike the notion, but why are you so concerned with what other people choose to do with their lives? All that only some of this relatively small portion of the population want is the right to form lasting, monogamous relationships with the person they love, and be able to recognize that person as a spouse for legal purposes such as rights to healthcare and estate. What possible basis do you have for denying these people such rights that you as a hetero enjoy? Because this denial essentially makes them second-class citizens, and religious motivation or no, it really seems to me to come from a place of mean-spiritedness.

If the law gives people the right to choose not to believe in the Bible, why should the Bible be allowed nevertheless to oppress their rights?

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 15:05: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Where is Icshi? in Richard White Games
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 11:42 Profile #11
I like Galactic Core. I like the Wizard of Oz. I like the Tin Man.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 11:35 Profile #64
I'm curious about what the "wrong reasons" are.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Are you now or have you ever been ... in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 10:57 Profile #26
I did in high school, but stopped when I got to college. Somehow, I didn't feel that speaking as fast as I could would benefit any of my potential career paths. I did meet a lot of deeply neurotic people in the process, though. :)
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 10:44 Profile #60
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

If you don't follow my faith, why do you take select bits out and turn them into law? That is what I'm trying to get across here.
What selected bits am I taking out to turn into law? As I mentioned, I would be all for eliminating regulation of marriage and the corresponding benefits it awards to those hetero couples out there. The state's interest in regulating and providing benefits to married couples is largely derived from its interest in promoting population growth. However, the state could just as easily create this incentive by instead allowing any couple or individual tax benefits for raising children.

If anything, I champion full-blown separation of church and state, because I believe that when religion becomes involved in government, oppression of non-members of that religion invariably ensues, and not being oppressed by another is I think what's at the core of the Constitution of my country.

EDIT: Furthermore, who's to say that Judaism or Christianity or Islam or Voodoo have a monopoly on good ideas for social organization? Just because a particular practice is a part of your faith tradition doesn't mean that it can't exist independently as a good idea for the social contract. Judaism claiming credit for the benefits of marriage is like Al Gore taking credit for the Internet.

Because we are talking about laws that effect everyone in a country, we necessarily are talking about the social contract/politics. Given this, what could be a valid social reason, outside of religious opposition, for not allowing civil unions of gay couples?

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:52: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 10:27 Profile #58
If I don't follow your faith, why should any of its precepts apply to me?

EDIT: Also, the words have been applied in the US Supreme Court (mentioned above in the 1947 case reference), which is binding law until it is changed, and this interpretation is unlikely to change anytime soon in the US.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:29: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 10:19 Profile #55
So your interests are protected; indeed, civil marriage does not exist in Israel.

So where's your dog in this fight?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 10:07 Profile #53
What Kel said about Thomas Jefferson.

Also, what facts am I assuming that aren't in evidence?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 10:01 Profile #50
You wouldn't be so quick to tear down separation of church and state if your religion wasn't sitting on top of the pile right now, and there's no guarantee it will remain there. So many people don't have a problem with a formal prayer in school now, but what if they decided to start making it to Allah? Believe it or not, separation of church and state protects your interests too.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 09:49 Profile #48
Opposition to civil unions for homosexual couples is motivated by fear and hate only - there is no other explanation. "Traditional marriage" is not "under attack" - how can a formal government union of two monogamous homosexual men possibly threaten a heterosexual couple's marriage?

Fear and hate. How easy it is for so called Christians to forget the "loving thy neighbor" and "removing the log from your own eye" passages of the Gospel - theoretically more important to Christians than the OT or the letters of Paul they rely on for their hate-mongering.

Furthermore, where is the harm? All the other non-Christians can get married, be they Jews, Muslims, or even Atheists. Furthermore, homosexual marriage is not looked at as wrong by a number of Christian sects and certainly not on the part of the Unitarian Universalist church. Why should bigoty fundamentalist Christianity hold the prevailing view? Boo-urns, I say.

Frankly, I think the state probably ought to just get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. It draws in only nominal fees, and the common law has progressed to the point that comparable contract law largely makes many of the will, trust, and estate arrangements redundant. Hospital visitation rights and insurance policies could be handled just as comparably.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 09:58: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Civil Unions disallowed in ACT in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, June 21 2006 04:40 Profile #15
Haha! Looks like Australia may be just as intolerant as the US on this one! Stick it in your ear, Aussies! :P

All marriages, for purposes of the state, should be civil unions, per TM's comic. "Marriage" is a religious term, and so should remain separate.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Holidays in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, June 20 2006 08:17 Profile #5
I'm going to Hilton Head, SC in August. Otherwise, it's summer school for me! Property is fun.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00

Pages