Profile for Thuryl


Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Rocky's Revival (World of Avernum Factional RP Revival Discussion) in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #91
quote:
Originally written by Eluctable:

Thuryl, are you talking about the pools of water in Avit? Because while those fomented understanding of the Olgai tongue in outsiders, they certainly didn't help the Olgai tribe learn other languages.
Well, they were clearly created for some purpose, and I doubt it was specifically to teach the Olgai clan's language to humans. If they can magically impart understanding of their language to humans, surely they can do it to other vahnatai too.

Then again, maybe not? Epiron-Bok makes a comment in A5 about how humans have much simpler minds than vahnatai, making it much easier to see their intentions (and perhaps easier to stick a language in there). Still, for the theory that the pools only work on humans to hold water, we must assume that in the short time between their first contact with humans and the A2 party's arrival in Avit, and with few or no experimental subjects to work on (it's hardly credible that the Empire would willingly offer up its citizens for the vahnatai to probe), the Olgai clan were able to develop an entirely new magical technique for imparting languages. I'll grant that this is possible, but it seems implausible.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Rocky's Revival (World of Avernum Factional RP Revival Discussion) in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #89
quote:
Originally written by Najosz Thjsza Kjras:

And incidentally, it's dubious the Vahnatai speak a single language or even share a single specific identity - remember, human monospecifity was largely restricted to philosophy and theology before the early 20th century.
As it happens, this was stated explicitly in A5 as well. Each clan of Vahnatai can only communicate with a few others. Some, like the Olgai clan, had magic to bypass the language barrier -- at least, in Exile 2 they did. I don't know if that's been retconned out since then.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bipolar in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #127
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

How about this: by virtue of making a statement of what we want, as true creators in the image of the Creator, we are creating the experience of want for ourselves. If we say, "I want this. Please give me this," we are saying that we do not have it, and the universe agrees with us. And that is what we continue to experience...wanting. But when we make a statement of what is not as if it now is..., well, I am, that I am.
By acting as if what you desire to be true is in fact true, you have joined the illustrious company of such people as erotomaniacs and megalomaniacs. Seriously, this kind of belief is not just wrong but dangerous. It's the kind of thing that drives people to shoot presidents.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bipolar in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #119
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I know a few scientists. I actually study the Bible with three and I like all of them. I like you too. Don’t be offended. I was abusing the Ghandi quote(“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”) to make the point about science that he made about Christendom. I thought it was more commonly known than it actually is apparently.
I think we all recognised the quote, but I don't see how the fact that it's a paraphrase of a quote makes it any less of an insult. Gandhi was hardly being complimentary to Christians when he said that, after all.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bipolar in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #109
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

You're assuming I was implying that he wasn't?
No, I'm inferring that you're implying that he wasn't.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bipolar in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #107
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

It's hard to believe for someone that doesn't have the full picture. And I'm not talking about all the details. I'm talking about a world view lacking the spiritual realm.
Dude, Student of Trinity is a Christian. Give your assuming muscles a rest every once in a while, will you?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Who Killed General? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #33
quote:
Originally written by Jeran Korak:

It would take me about 25 minutes to make it and about another 2 hours to insert all the details. And quite a large ammount of that time would be because I'd have to wait for my poor internet connection to open things.
And can you guarantee that it'd also be more secure? It's my understanding that the switch from Ikonboard to UBB happened in response to a hacking attempt.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #193
What's the deal with the forums lately? It's never been this bad before. I can barely post at all sometimes.

EDIT: Aaand when I finally get my post through, it breaks the topic. Whoops!

[ Wednesday, December 26, 2007 07:10: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #192
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Your “interfere” argument is just semantics as far as I can tell.
When one is talking about what the letter of the law permits and what it does not, semantics are all-important. Dismissing a legal argument as "just semantics" is like referring to the heart as "just a pump". So it is, but without it you'd be dead.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Six locked topics on page #14 in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #2
quote:
Originally written by Jeran Korak:

I've not seen so many since Ed and Public Enemy Number #1 were here. Just who the hell was PE#1 anyway?
He was Feran, but of course that doesn't mean anything to you either.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Why is attempted murder illegal? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #23
quote:
Originally written by The Almighty Do-er of Stuff:

Compensation is still a purpose worth consideration, at any rate.
Usually compensation is a matter for civil law rather than criminal law, though.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bipolar in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #86
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Woo woo woo woo woo woo woo woo burble burble woo.
Fixed your typo.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #468
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I think marriage is seen by many as a stabilizing, civilizing, and society-sustaining arrangement.
And do you really think that government recognition of marriage makes it any more society-sustaining than it'd be if it were a purely private arrangement? If anything, government recognition of marriage leads to more people getting married just for the benefits without caring about whether their own marriage would be one that's likely to help sustain society.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #465
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Not when it relates to a sexual institution such as marriage. And not when reproduction is based on sex. It’s natural categorization.
You still haven't told us why you think the government should support marriage in the first place. "Because the government thinks it's for the good of society" isn't good enough, and "because it encourages people to reproduce" has already been debunked.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #463
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

You’re wrong because you don’t understand the meaning of discrimination
To discriminate is to treat two people, groups or things differently from each other. From where I'm standing, you're the one who doesn't understand what it means.

quote:
Why do you say it’s the same kind of discrimination as Jim Crow and then say there are no different kinds?
Um, the latter implies the former. "No different kinds" means "all the same kind". You fail at basic English and basic set theory.

quote:
Who decides whether or not a case for discrimination is wrong?
Well, since I'm the one making the argument here, I decide. I suppose you'd rather I let you decide.

quote:
I’m addressing the issue as it is. How do you feel nature invalidates my position, which (just for sake of clarification) is that the government recognizing only 1 man-1 woman marriage is not the same as Jim Crow segregation or sexism?
Because as a way of categorising people, sex is every bit as narrow and arbitrary as race.

I'm not going to address all the stuff about US constitutional law because I'm not a lawyer (although Drew is). Hell, I don't even live in the US.

[ Monday, December 24, 2007 23:58: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #460
quote:
Thuryl, what is your religious belief on whether or not banning gay marriage is discrimination in the same sense that Jim Crow laws are? Why is your religious belief leading you to illogical conclusions?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Stillness?

quote:
Recognizing gender differences is not necessarily discrimination. For example: Some states require that strip searches be done by someone of the same sex. This is not discrimination for reasons related to gender.
Actually, it is discrimination, of exactly the same kind as Jim Crow laws -- there are no different "kinds" of discrimination. It's just that one case has a good reason behind it and the other doesn't. In an ideal world, neither case of discrimination would have to exist.

quote:
I think “varies with each person” is stretching things a bit. You’re talking about abnormalities. I think there is definitely call for some reevaluation of gender evaluation and categorization. But, in most of the “inter-sexed” there is still a definite sex even if at birth this is not easily discernable. Chromosomal or inspection of internal organs would reveal it. For the .018% that can’t be classified I don’t know that any relationship they have could be classified as homo or heterosexual by nature so as to have any real bearing on this discussion. Let’s not confuse these issues.
It ain't me confusing these issues: it's nature. You just want the issues to be clear-cut and not as confusing as they really are because that's the only way your position makes any sense.

quote:
You all can’t say it should be allowed because some are sexually attracted to their own gender out one side of your mouth and then say it’s not a sexual issue out the other.
It's not our fault that the government can't make up its mind on what marriage is. Frankly, what I would like is for the government to keep its hands off all marriage, whether heterosexual, homosexual or asexual, and leave it to individuals to make contracts on terms they mutually agree upon. If those individuals want to call those contracts "marriages", so be it. But if the government recognises one kind of "marriage", it's plainly discriminatory for it to not recognise every other kind.

[ Monday, December 24, 2007 21:25: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Why is attempted murder illegal? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #11
quote:
Originally written by Ninjanaranjato:

And speaking of incompetence, doesn't treating intent and action separately perversely reward failure?
Rewarding failure at murdering somebody probably isn't such a terrible thing.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Why is attempted murder illegal? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #9
Hi, Scorp.

Laws exist primarily to protect the community and deter people from committing crimes, not to dish out eye-for-an-eye punishments. In a sense, the actual harm done is irrelevant; putting a murderer in jail won't bring back the dead, after all. What's important is that attempting to kill someone proves that you're a person who's likely to attempt to kill someone, which means society is justified in locking you up for its own protection.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bipolar in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #75
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Women have made headway into all sorts of arenas formerly dominated by men. What has changed less is the way the work environment works, and what aspects of human contribution are valued. The intuitive and feeling functions most typically seen and accepted in women are still not seen as particularly viable, acceptable, or useful components of the institutionalized working world.
Those "intuitive and feeling functions" are not something intrinsic to women; they are an expectation which has historically been placed on women by society to keep women down. In societies that value being emotionally reserved, women are seen as more emotional than men, sure -- but anthropological studies consistently reveal that in societies that value emotional expression, women are seen as less emotional than men. The one and only constant in the traits a culture attributes to women is that they're not the traits held in highest prestige by that society.

I don't claim to know all the solutions to the problem of gender discrimination, but making accommodations for a restrictive gender role that's historically evolved to keep women marginalised will only make things worse.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #452
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Maybe we should analyze yours to understand why you've come to an incorrect conclusion.
Maybe we should. If you did so, at least you'd actually be contributing something to the discussion instead of engaging in the kind of vacuous nuh-uhery that you're supposedly above. In the last 18 pages you've not made a single coherent statement beyond "No it isn't!". It's hard to address your arguments when you're not arguing anything.

quote:
I asked a question in response to this argument that has as yet been unanswered and asked that we pursue it. No one seemed to want to, so I was asking Alex for clarification to see if he was raising the same point again.
I didn't answer it because I assumed it was a rhetorical question, and not a very good one. Here you go.

quote:
I have an answer, but let me ask you this first: You accuse me of arbitrary legalism for going with the sex on the birth certificate, so how would you know if the government is discriminating without looking at the sex on birth certificate? Or try this one: If sex were not on the birth certificate, would there be another way of telling the difference between a male and a female?
In answer to Question 1: The fact that discrimination is arbitrary doesn't make it better. If the government assigned people completely at random to one of two groups at birth, and allowed Group 1 people to marry Group 2 people but didn't allow people of the same type to marry each other, that'd still be discrimination.

Question 2: There are many ways of telling the difference between a male and a female. The trouble is that they don't always all come up with the same answer for any given person. There are people legally defined as "male" walking around today who could have been defined as "female" if the doctor attending the birth had been in a different mood at the time. Why does the government need to fit every person into the categories of "male" or "female" anyway? What compelling interest does it have in knowing what sex every single citizen is, by some arbitrarily-chosen definition of sex that varies with each person?

Now, let's see your "answer".

[ Sunday, December 23, 2007 04:35: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #450
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

What you have to do to prove me wrong is show the logic of your position, not talk about my religious beliefs. Your inability to see that after I have repeatedly stated and restated what I’m saying speaks to your lack of reason. And now I see Salmon is doing the same thing in the post immediately after yours. Unfortunate.
Everyone but you thinks that you've already been proven wrong. We're analysing your religious beliefs in an attempt to figure out why you don't agree.

Also, I think ad hominem arguments do have their uses: if two opposing arguments seem to have approximately equal merit, it's perfectly valid to side with the one that isn't supported by a total nutcase.

quote:
How are you saying it’s gender discrimination?
Um. I explained a couple of pages ago why banning gay marriage is sexual discrimination: a woman can legally marry a man, but a man can't. Your response was to say that you'd been waiting for someone to make this point, and you offered no counterargument whatsoever -- which suggests that you already knew that it was sexual discrimination and were hoping we weren't smart enough to figure out why.

And you claim to wonder why we think you're arguing in bad faith. *sigh*

[ Sunday, December 23, 2007 04:18: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bipolar in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #54
Goodbye forever, Synergy. See you next week.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bipolar in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #41
quote:
Originally written by Safey:

The only thing that can save the world is if society brings its focus to saving world instead of blissfully hoping someone else will.
Please re-read this sentence until you can tell me why it's so silly.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bipolar in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #39
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

It's what the western world has given men to do for their gender role, and we've learned it quite well-be stuck in the head and cut off from other more vital parts of being human.
2/3 of new biologists are female. This is not a gender issue, however much you might like it to be.

quote:
How's it working for us? Not so well. Science, technology, and technocracy does not have the answers for the challenges we have been failing to overcome for millennia now...ourselves, our attitudes, our separtism, our killing of one another. We're just able to do all these things much more efficiently now. The god of science, like the god of religion, is going to be shown how bankrupt and inept, and incomplete it really is in context of what we are actually trying to be.
I don't see you bringing about world peace either. Just because science can't solve a problem, doesn't mean something else can.

[ Saturday, December 22, 2007 04:44: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bipolar in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #37
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Scientist sorts can become very tedious to imaginative people, because they may demonstrate a complete lack of imagination.
Oh, scientists have plenty of imagination. They couldn't do their job if they weren't able to formulate hypotheses. What they don't have is the delusion that imagining something automatically makes it true.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00

Pages