Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Enkindu

In spite of the fact that I must remain as unmoved in my beliefs as you are in yours, this has been a generally civil debate that I have enjoyed.

Alas, at the end of the day we will have to once again agree to disagree.

OH.. but I really would like to see the definitive test for God's word.  At your convenience.

 

Ok, I said my previous post was going to be my last for the evening, but I lied (forgive me Lord).  But this one will be pretty short, so I think I can handle it.

I find your position to be far more intolerant than my own.  You glossed over much of my post with little more than a superficial response.  You label two of my sentences as offensive and discriminatory "by nature".  How so?  You do not justify your position in any way.  And those positions are not my own, they are Biblical.  So what you are really saying is that the Bible is offensive and discriminatory by nature.  And I would agree with the discriminatory to this extent.  Yes, it discriminates between what is sinful and what is not.  If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the Bible, not my position.

Your doctrine is right because it involves patience, virtue, tolerence, blah, blah blah and mine is wrong because it is cruel and judgemental.  So I guess I am wrong in judging a person for murdering someone else?  I guess we cannot judge people for their actions and therefore we should let all the criminals in prison out.  I suppose if a bunch of rapists and murderers moved into your neighborhood, you would have no problem with that because you should not judge them and you would welcome them with open arms?

As far as me accepting a "cultural mythology", I was born in a non-Christian family.  My father is an atheist and my mother an agnostic.  I didn't accept anything at first. God came to me before I came to Him.

Just because the Bible is not as widespread in some places as in others does not disqualify from being God's Word.  For one thing, there some governments, such as China, which outlaw it.  But the reach of the Bible in the world as opposed to any other book in history is unmatched.  Nothing else even comes close.  Just one piece of evidence that gives it credibility over any other text for being God's Word.  But, I'll save more of that for another post.

You mentioned jews, muslims, agnostics, etc. as being void of the knowledge of the Word of God.  Well you would be wrong there.  For one thing, jews are the ones responsible for keeping God's Word alive from ancient times to the present day.  If it hadn't been for the work of jewish scribes in the times before Christ and Christian monks after Christ, we would not have the Bible today.  Making it available to all, including my agnostic mother.  It's available to her, whether or not she reads it is her choice to make.

What makes you think I don't love people for who they are?  Are you judging me?  Tsk, tsk.  Christ would approve.  He hung out with sinners, but he also did not excuse their sin.  When he saved the adulterous woman from being stoned, he showed her compassion by doing so, but the last thing he said to her was, "Go and sin no more."

So you excuse the behavior of the two people who interrupted the service because of the history of the Catholic church?   In other words, you are justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.  Even though it's highly unlikely that anyone in that church had anything to do with the Crusades, the Inquisition or any other thing the Catholic church did in its history.

When I get some time and my computer is working better, I'll pull out some of the evidence that makes the Bible unique among all the books that exist or have ever existed in the earth.

Rapists and murderers are violent criminals that infringe on others right to exist or make their own decisions.  And in doing so they have infringed on the laws of our society.  We separate these people according to our own laws intended to keep our liberties and freedoms safe from others tyranny.  That is our choice as a society.  It has nothing to do with us not having compassion or sympathy for them, it has to do with their disregard for others and our ideas of what are appropriate consequences to be placed upon them while they are on this Earth.

And the Bible is discriminatory; to people who read it that way.  It's all a matter of interpretation.  And if you feel that God is a loving creator that truly understands us and forgives us, then why choose an interpretation that pegs him otherwise????  That is going against what's in your heart and instead just tagging along with a majority or just taking the safe easy way out.  That is a cop out if I've ever heard one.

There are many scholars and there are many interpretations.  Which leaves the choice up to you.  And your choice, as it seems to me at least, should reflect how you see our creator. 

Personally, I see him as purely benevolent.  I also see him as knowing everything about us to the point of complete understanding and forgiveness.  Even when we do not accept that forgiveness, he still forgives.  Because he knows our faults as humans and he knows our limitations .

That's why I choose the interpretations that match what I believe.  What I truly believe.  Not what someone else told me is "right".

Other than that, there is one other important thing that we have to contend to.  And that is giving the people the freedom to worship and believe how they want and the ability to do that without the weight of government and it's influence.  No religion should be given special privilege by government.  That means state or federal.  And that is undeniably what is going on with the issue of gay marriage.  The government is recognizing the marriage ritual and definition of one religion over another.  Nobody can deny that.  And that is un-Constitutional.  If people cannot accept that, then they are trying to force this Republic into becoming a democracy. 

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by gnomexxx

What is hateful is taking your religious beliefs and pushing them on another human being.  Especially when you use the government to do so.  Whether that government be a state government or a federal government.

Look, I agree with a lot of what you write when it comes to economic arguments.  I'm a very strong conservative when it comes to the the economy.  But when it comes to someone's civil rights, I will fight and die for those in a heartbeat.

This is absolutely a civil rights issue.  There are people who's religious beliefs say that they are allowed to marry same sex couples.  These same people are being told by the government that their religious beliefs and practices are not valid.  Whether you agree with their religious beliefs or not is a mute point.  The fact of the matter is plain and clear.

Think about that.  They go to their church and they believe that they have a valid marriage before their God.  Then our government is saying that they are wrong.  Our government is saying that they're religion is invalid.  That is what you want going on in America????  Seriously?

 

You know, the thing is that it's not so much that I am against gay marraige.  Perhaps in principal I am not when it comes to the government saying who can and cannot marry.  It's more the reality that our society has devolved (yes, devolved) to the point that the people even have to consider the issue.  It's an ominous sign for the future of our country.  As recently as two decades ago if anyone of note had publicly proclaimed support for gay marraige, that person would have been regarded as a loon and relegated to the fringe of society.  Government didn't have to consider the matter because no more than a handful of individuals even thought it was a tenable position.  Today it's an issue that is splitting the country.

And you don't just have to look at that issue to support my position that morally, America is in big trouble.  Many of our parents love to talk about how when they were kids, they didn't even have to lock their doors because there was no need to feel unsafe in their own house or their own neighborhood.  Today we've got 15-year old girls being gang raped in public and crowds of people looking on without doing anything.

So perhaps, it's not whether the government has a right to say who should be allowed to get married; perhaps the issue is whether or not America's future looks promising.  You can take all the factors, add them up and say, "I'm not so sure."  You and I may agree that we are destroying our country economically, but we may differ on whether or not we are falling apart morally.  And I would venture to guess that the difference stems from the difference in our faiths.

If you believe that God at some time in the past destroyed the earth by a flood because of mankind's behavior (which I do) and you believe God destroyed a couple of cities in the past named Sodom and Gomorrah because of mankind's behavior (which I do), then why must I and others like me be vilified for seeing signs we find troubling and worrying that it's possible that our country could find itself in similiar dire circumstances at some point in the future if this country continues on the road that it's on?

Is it really hateful to be concerned about the well-being of our country when we see signs, both morally and economically, which may point to its eventual demise, and would likewise, be willing to give up our lives to not see that happen?

Where you see us devolving because of this issue, I see us instead becoming more liberated and free.

And yes, we do have a difference of faith.  I am a member of the Unitarian church.  And I love my country for its foundations that promise freedom of religion and also that the government will not recognize one religion over another.  That is our law.  And it is being broken by denying my churches beliefs from being recognized equally to others.

My church performs gay marriages.  My church recognizes the love between gay people as being real and meaningful on a positive level.  And yes, my church has protested that we feel we are being treated unfairly.  And we are, that is undeniable.

This country is not a democracy.  But some people are working really hard to turn it into one.  And that is way more scary and destructive than giving committed gays equal treatment under the law.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Whether or not human beings are prediposed towards certain actions and/or lifestyles is open for debate.  Are some people predisposed to become alcoholics more than others, etc?  But what is not open to debate is that engaging in a sexual act, be it homosexual or heterosexual, is a choice.  Unless someone compels you to have sex, which is rape, you make the decision to do so, however strong the urge.  The Bible doesn't say that being born with certain predispositions is a sin, it says that commiting such acts which go against God's will are.  So from that standpoint, the "being born that way" argument doesn't work.  I'm not so sure that homosexuals exchanging maritial vows would qualify as being sinful so long as they never engage in sexual relations.  But the moment they do, that's when they've crossed God's line.

Now you can go ahead and argue that the state has no business getting involved in matters of faith and you may be right, but I was simply adressing your point of whether the way human beings are born is relevent or not.  But I would add that the Constitution only adresses what the federal government can and cannot do.  There's nothing that says that individual states cannot decide these matters on a state by state basis.

And to adress your point that the overwhelming number of gays say they were born that way, don't you think there's the slightest chance that people are capable of convincing themselves of something in order to justify it?  Which is more likely to gain the sympathy of society - saying, "Oh yeah, I'm gay by choice and I want to be able to engage in homosexual acts and I demand that you agree with me."  Or sayiing, "I was born this way, I can't help it."

Yeah, clearly a child wants to go through the terror and agony of being hated and misunderstood and sometimes DISOWNED (by their loving christian families- gimme a fucking break).  They make the choice to live this life intentionally. 

Do you realize how faulty your logic is?

I have friends who have LITERALLY been cast out from their families because of this type of psycho-christian hate bullshit.  I've seen what it has done to their lives.  And you think it is a choice.  Pathetic.

Tell you what I think.  I think you are hateful, homophobic, and WRONG and Jesus would say that to your face. 

What we need to do is start treating fundamentalist CHRISTIANS like the sinners that they are.  We can send you off to indoctrination camps where you learn to be actual humans.

 

Wow, there's a lot of projection in your post there.  I'm surprised that you read what I typed and find hate.  It seems that your post is more hateful toward me than mine is toward anyone.  Especially since I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, I was simply making an agrument.  But hey, if you see hate there, go with it.  Whatever gets you through the night.

What is hateful is taking your religious beliefs and pushing them on another human being.  Especially when you use the government to do so.  Whether that government be a state government or a federal government.

Look, I agree with a lot of what you write when it comes to economic arguments.  I'm a very strong conservative when it comes to the the economy.  But when it comes to someone's civil rights, I will fight and die for those in a heartbeat.

This is absolutely a civil rights issue.  There are people who's religious beliefs say that they are allowed to marry same sex couples.  These same people are being told by the government that their religious beliefs and practices are not valid.  Whether you agree with their religious beliefs or not is a mute point.  The fact of the matter is plain and clear.

Think about that.  They go to their church and they believe that they have a valid marriage before their God.  Then our government is saying that they are wrong.  Our government is saying that they're religion is invalid.  That is what you want going on in America????  Seriously?

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

Actually you didn't win at all.

You lost due to a very noticable lack of logic.

Being Gay is not a choice. This is a fact that is agreed on by the vast majority of the scientific community. You can not chose your sexuality, a gay person can never be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Your other logic is also full of flaws. If 100% of the population is gay? Right. But 100% of the population isn't gay, so why use a fictional what if scenario that will never happen?

Allowing gay marriage is not the same as allowing you to marry a family member, a dog or whatever ridiculous example you thought up with. These are forbidden for all kinds of reasons. none of which apply to gay marriage.

You're trying to defend a postion that can't possibly be defended with logic.

Just out of curiosity, explain this.

The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

 

But you can sure go ask a bunch of gay people if they chose to be gay or not.  And the OVERWHELMING response you're going to get from them is that no, they did not choose to be gay.

Why you want to minimize that sort of evidence I don't know.  But it's more than compelling to me.  I just can't see a whole group of people lying about who they are capable of forming an emotional and sexual attachment to.  What would all these people have to gain socially, psychologically, financially, or in any way really the way they are treated in society these days and in the past? 

When there were 47% of the people who voted in support of gay marriage being equal and recognized, I wouldn't exactly say the people of the U.S. reject this. 

I would instead say that the people of the U.S. are starting to change their minds about this issue. 

This was disgraceful and un-American before, and it is now.  But I wonder if there will be an outcry against this like there was when Bush was in office?  My guess is it won't even make the news.

Obama's latest use of "secrecy" to shield presidential lawbreaking
What was once depicted as a grave act of lawlessness -- Bush's NSA program -- is now deemed a vital state secret.
By Glenn Greenwald

The Obama administration has, yet again, asserted the broadest and most radical version of the "state secrets" privilege -- which previously caused so much controversy and turmoil among loyal Democrats (when used by Bush/Cheney) -- to attempt to block courts from ruling on the legality of the government's domestic surveillance activities. Obama did so again this past Friday -- just six weeks after the DOJ announced voluntary new internal guidelines which, it insisted, would prevent abuses of the state secrets privilege. Instead -- as predicted -- the DOJ continues to embrace the very same "state secrets" theories of the Bush administration -- which Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically once vehemently condemned -- and is doing so in order literally to shield the President from judicial review or accountability when he is accused of breaking the law.

The case of Shubert v. Bush is one of several litigations challenging the legality of the NSA program, of which the Electronic Frontier Foundation is lead coordinating counsel. The Shubert plaintiffs are numerous American citizens suing individual Bush officials, alleging that the Bush administration instituted a massive "dragnet" surveillance program whereby "the NSA intercepted (and continues to intercept) millions of phone calls and emails of ordinary Americans, with no connection to Al Qaeda, terrorism, or any foreign government" and that "the program monitors millions of calls and emails . . . entirely in the United States . . . without a warrant" (page 4). The lawsuit's central allegation is that the officials responsible for this program violated the Fourth Amendment and FISA and can be held accountable under the law for those illegal actions.
 

Originally posted by osirisss

Some of you Americans are really full of shit,i mean really full of it,come to my country and you would  fall over.In the UK their are millions of mixed race people and marriages,you walk down the street and their is black men with white women and mixed race kids,no one gives a shit.

You really are living in the past,really backward thinking.

 

 

Oh, look.  Someone found the need to fill the obligatory, "America Sucks", position.

That took some real guts and enlightenment.  We put a half-white possibly Muslim President in the White House and we're still a bunch of trailer humping hicks.  Really?  Then where's your half-white UK Prime Minister at?  Seems we have better racial relations over here, now doesn't it????

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by upallnight

My Christian church performs gay marriages.  For it to be called anything other than that would be the government choosing one religion over another. 

I do agree with you though, the government should not be in the marriage recognition business.  But it is.  And if it chooses to do that and afford privileges and rights to go along with that label, then it needs to do it fairly.

If my church performs marriages between same sex consenting couples then why is my church being disenfranchised?

 

I agree 100% which is why I'd hope government would get out of the marriage business and stick to "civil unions" which should be allowed between citizens.

I'm not sure if my church would marry a gay couple if it were legal in Illinois, but I would support it if they did.  I am an Episcopalian (spelling?) and we had a big hooplah over our first openly gay Bishop awhile back which you all probably read and heard about.

My theological argument is this:  Even if being gay or having gay sex is a sin (which I think is debatable, but that's not my point), we are sinful creatures and have no business in judging others for their sins.  That responsbility resides with God and only God.  Furthermore assuming gay sex is a sin (which I don't think it is, but again is not my point) it certainly is a victimless sin and does not compare to say murder or theft.  It really is a small issue in the grander scheme of things and I'm convinced its a non-issue that's meant to distract us from real issues like Monetary Policy :) 

I don't think it's all that small of an issue.  I feel like anyone having their rights denied of them is a huge issue.  If they can be taken away from one minority, then how long is it really until they are taken away from everyone?

Originally posted by outfctrl

I will never be convinced that homosexuality is normal.  I will accept it in society to some extent, but that's it. We are all different. 

 

So only people deemed "normal" are given rights and equal treatment under the law in America?  That's what our Constitution and Bill of Rights says?

For the love of anything sane, when is this kind of crap going to stop?  This is so stupid.  Do we expect to just take complete control of children away from their parents some day?  I know some parents would completely love that, but the idea of lack of responsibility is not virtuous.  Why isn't this community up in arms over this b.s.?

Breakfast at school now is on the principal

By Alfred Lubrano

Inquirer Staff Writer

In a locally unprecedented move, the School District of Philadelphia will hold principals accountable for the number of students eating breakfast in their schools.

Breakfast participation will be part of the report card that rates principals each year, along with categories such as attendance and math and reading performance.

All 165,000 students in Philadelphia public schools, regardless of income, are eligible for free breakfasts. But just 54,000 ate breakfast last year, district figures show.

The new system, which begins this year, is expected to increase the number of students eating breakfast, said Jonathan Stein, a lawyer with Community Legal Services, whose efforts - along with those of Public Citizens for Children and Youth (PCCY) - helped bring about the move.

Many studies have shown that breakfast boosts student performance and health.

"This is the first accountability system for school meals in the history of the school system," Stein said. "It's very exciting."

Wayne Grasela, senior vice president of food services for the district, said he was equally pleased.

"One of our main goals is to help improve a child's ability to learn," he said. "We're working with the principals to make this happen. They're already reaching out to us."

Not everyone is happy, however.

"You're doing a disservice to principals by holding them accountable without controlling for other variables," said Michael Lerner, president of Teamsters Local 502, Commonwealth Association of School Administrators.

Should a principal be blamed for a student who ate breakfast at home and therefore doesn't eat in school, asked Lerner, who was a principal for 22 years.

"Are we going to get to forced feedings?" he continued. "I think it's wrong to assume no parent in Philadelphia is providing breakfast each day."

And, Lerner added, many children wind up not eating, thereby wasting food.

"If you know kids," he said, "they'll eat what they want and when they want."

High-poverty areas

Advocates point out that many Philadelphia children live in high-poverty areas, and thus are more likely to be without the kind of nutritious foods that mandatory breakfasts provide.

And Grasela added that "it doesn't count against principals if kids already ate, because we already assumed that in our target numbers, which are reasonable and attainable."

Not every principal will be held to the same numbers, he added, saying the targets are on a graduated scale, taking into account established lower rates of breakfast participation at certain schools.

The goal is to increase breakfast participation by 35 percent over the next two years, so that participation would be 70,000 students by 2011, Stein said.

There is a huge disparity among schools in serving breakfast, according to a School District Division of Food Services analysis.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by kiddyno071

White kids could have never pulled off that level of choreography; or maybe the white kids parents wouldn't let their kids sing any song that mentioned a "blacK" president.  I bet thats where the racism lays! 

Nah, white kids just have better things to do in school.

 

Wow....

I know, that was a good come back by Seabass!  I agree.

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by kiddyno071

White kids could have never pulled off that level of choreography; or maybe the white kids parents wouldn't let their kids sing any song that mentioned a "blacK" president.  I bet thats where the racism lays! 

Nah, white kids just have better things to do in school.

 

Really like what?!?  Or are you looking at different national testing data?

Funny how you make a racist remark about white kids, but when someone bites back at you it's all gloves off now.

Typical if you ask me.

All I've seen lately about Chicago is how you take your life into your hands just stepping out onto the street.  I know it's like that in almost every town, but Chicago seems to be much worse than the others.

I wouldn't want the Olympics there either if that is the case.

And honestly, I've never thought of Chicago as all that outstanding anyhow.  Some cities have endearing charm or some kind of positive characteristic personality to them.  Chicago just seems like a big city to me.  And that isn't anything to get really excited about.

Yep.  When someone talks about using the Constitution as a guideline to running our country it always brings the Republicans and Democrats out screaming.

Nothing new here.  Next....

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by Munki

You missed the part where I had a logical argument, so regardless of my status as a troll, president or boat captain; my argument remains just as valid.
You really over using "ad hominem"; or mis-using in this case.

As for this whole argument, its becoming a rediculous pissing contest of who can whip out more vocabulary from a first year course in logic.
What I've been saying is its used as a relative measure of intelligence and is currently the best model we have. If you can do better by all means enlighten us; While you're at it you might as well publish a paper and reap the fame that would undoubtably follow such a useful system of measurement.

 

     Nope. I'm using ad hominem properly: Your argument is that my point isn't valid, since you think I'm a troll and know nothing of the subject; you don't actually prove me wrong, but claim that I'm wrong through character assault. That is, by definition, an ad hominem argument.

    Here is another example: You spelled ridiculous wrong, so your pathetic first grade spelling implies that your point is invalid.

    You keep saying that it's the "best model we have", yet you don't support it with anything other than "PhD's in psychology said so, so it must be true"....

     I suggest you think for yourself and google "Central Limit Theorem", then try and verify for yourself when you come upon a study that all of the necessary hypotheses are satisfied (of the central limit theorem); should everything actually converge to a normal distribution the question of causation still lingers and maybe then you'll realize that constructive, rigorous and consistent disciplines have much better things to do than try and quantify something without a complete understanding of the physical apparatus behind it.

 

No. My first argument was your a troll.. my evidence was your post.
After that I was making a seperate point which stood on its own.

Again, I've mentioned I understand basic logic and statistics.
And again, you're simply passing aside the work of very talented people.
Its great that you are currently taking/took a hard science like physics or chemistry.
I'm a computer science major with a minor is math. So if you want to have a academic pissing contest feel free to PM me, but for got sakes stop trying to give everyone an abridged version of a first year logic course.

 

 

You two quit fighting or I'll come in there with a belt ! 

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

* If a conservative is homosexual, he’ll quietly enjoy his life.

   So you're saying that homosexuals should feel ashamed of their orientation and not tell anybody about it? The next time a president gets elected I'll tell him to quietly enjoy his life and hide his wife away so nobody can see her as heterosexuality should be enjoyed quietly as well.
 

 

Look at it this way. Certain homosexual groups push their beliefs into your face the same as a religious group does. Neither is wanted.

I don't believe the point was to "keep it in the closet", but to stop with the utter flamboyancy. Who says to be gay is to be flamboyant? Homosexuality is the individual's choice, but it must not be thrust into everyone's lives.

Imagine if their were "Christian Pride" parades. I, for one, am not seeking those who are gay to remain hidden, only to not come out and say "I AM GAY, NOW YOU KNOW, YOU MUST ACCEPT IT!"

 

See that part I highlighted?  I'm curious as to how far you mean by that.

If a gay person brings a picture of his boyfriend and places it on his desk at work, is that going too far?  Or how about if they hold hands in a public place while walking along innocently?  Or, what if they just want to have some basic rights that are afforded to all straight couples when they marry?

I'm not putting you down, I'm just genuinely curious how you can say something like that without knowing it's going to become a slippery slope that has a lot of loop holes in it for the haters.

Originally posted by Wolfenpride

how'd this thread go from religion to healthcare reform?

btw, the picture under your name is disturbingly provocative. 

Originally posted by Wolfenpride

how'd this thread go from religion to healthcare reform?

Because we have a new messiah.  He's in the White House. 

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I think believing in a god, any god, is illogical and weak. 

 

However, I do not care if others do it as long as they shut up about it and keep it to themselves.

 

In other words you don't believe in freedom of speech. Hmmmm. I thought you believed in personal freedom.

Him, believe in personal freedoms?????  

The guy who backs a group that wants to throw people in jail if they don't choose to buy a health insurance policy!?!?

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall

 

I don't back that health care plan.  Stop making shit up.

Really?  Make shit up, huh?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Dracus
A mandatory health insurance policy I would see going to the Supreme Court for a ruling if it is Constitutional or not.
Given that the Court leans Right at the present time... possible the law, if approved would be voided.

Sabiancym
So is mandatory car liability insurance illegal as well? You have to have it to protect someone from having to front a bill that you caused. Just like having health insurance would protect hospitals and doctors from having to front all of the bill in the case of treatment received that you needed but couldn't pay for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 

 

Where does it say that I support the bill?  I was being objective in that post.  I have said in many many many posts that I do support the current main health care plan out there. 

So yes, making shit it.

 

You DO seem to be making an argument for the part of the bill he was discussing there though. Are you saying you don't support making health insurance mandatory? If so, excellent.

 

I've never supported making it mandatory to buy health care from private companies.  I've said it here, and many other posts.  Quote me on it.

Then what do you support making mandatory?  Because what I quoted you saying above sure sounds you're wanting something to be mandated.

Originally posted by metalhead980

No mmo is without the grind.

Saying Aion Isn't quality pve due to quest stacking is wrong. the truth is every MMO sucks when it comes to pve stuff like quests and storytelling.

For a person like me I would rather have my nuts smashed by a sledge hammer than play a quest stacker.

I don't even mess with quest stacker MMOs anymore, I would rather just play a single player rpg or action/adventure.

 

Getting your nuts smashed by a sledge hammer.  I wonder how much XP you would get for that quest?