LadyBernkastel

I didn't say it was a problem with the product. I said I didn't like them.

They were just so . . . boring. And I couldn't build anything more complex than a wall.

I hated legos.

I feel sorry for you.

I had a tornado race track. That was some awesome stuff right there.

Indeed, religion is intolerant. I never said it was not. And yet, if you have an intolerant sky wizard, not much can be done about it.

But allowing it would be offensive to the religion that believes it to be wrong.

Notice I did not specify any religion. I said it's a religious concept. My point is that the gay community doesn't need to go after marriage. Any partnership with the same benifits as marriage would do.

Still could have been worked with. Then that's something they and other members of their religion should deal with. If sky wizard says no gay marriage and they still want to follow their religion, not much can be done about it. Hm. I seem to have misread what Gig said. I'd have to look into that topic a little more before I speak further on it.

You know, a while ago, I would have agreed with you. However, after listening to a few arguments on the subject, I do have this to point out: Marriage is a completely religious concept. The entire point of marriage is: "Sky wizard told us to not have sex unless we're married." And, really, unless you have a sky wizard telling you not to, what reason would you have for following that? Not much. After all, satisfying the sex drive is a basic need.Also, correct me if I'm wrong on this, I'll admit this is hearsay on my part, but the government did introduce an alternative to marriage for gay couples that gave all the same financial and political benefits as marriage. The gay community refused to accept it because it wasn't called marriage. So, basically, it's the gay community wanting to spit on someone else's religion just because they can. Not exactly the best way to get that religion to accept you. That is completely the choice of the people. If the people of those states think the right person in office is a Christian, they have the right to. If you think an athiest should be in office, then you have the right to. Fox News sucks ass anyway.

If voice acting of some sort was added, would it be possible to have a boss that has variable lines? For example:Player: *playing Pyro*Boss: You're playing PYRO?! What a noob!Or Player: *playong Heavy*Boss: You're only playing Heavy because you can't play a real class!

Fully support. When I play MMOs, for example, I always choose whatever the white mage for that game is. TF2 is no different. I play a lot of Medic when I know my team is competent enough to protect me.

Most creationists I've seen agree that dinosaurs existed and have reasons to believe they existed around the same time as humans.

I've never seen a Christian deny the existence of dinosaurs.

Of course, but that's an issue of bad parenting, not blasphemy. Besides, he implies us adults will be affected the same way a child would. I mean, don't we all start shouting at people and wear possessed armor after we play Skyrim? Yeah, it's pretty stupid. I have never heard anything in the Bible that claims fiction must conform to the standards set for real life.Sadly, our good buddy James doesn't make that many video game videos, though.

I'm surprised he got through reviewing Skyrim without mentioning the fact that gay marriage is possible. Oh wait, no I'm not. He doesn't play any game he reviews. He just watches the trailers. But there's more where that came from:http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz_lu2APWwM&feature=plcp&context=C4fc6d83VDvjVQa1PpcFOZqbAopDVDFT58TL8gH-m9ZH5A6oh1By8%3D Yes. He reviewed it twice.http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPJjfYpvnj4&feature=plcp&context=C454ae52VDvjVQa1PpcFOZqbAopDVDFXPtcf9Wf9sH 2mRze0KRXf8%3D http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnieTcvKcqs&feature=plcp&context=C4205f30VDvjVQa1PpcFOZqbAopDVDFY0LLEw_vfBm l4RcsZuXf2w=

Alright. Give me a minute. One of my biggest sources has thousands of videos, so it's hard to choose.Edit: Here's one we can all relate to. This guy very professionally reviews a video game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3VapWIJCDY&feature=plcp&context=C4a9a680VDvjVQa1PpcFOZqbAopDVDFbw2B8JhkPYc L54j_lwun94%3D

I don't know what's more amazing: The fact that this would be true anywhere or the fact that SPUFFERS are capable of having mature debate on this subject. I'm surprised we can have mature debate period. And while we're on the subject of religion, if anyone wants a good laugh, I like to keep track of some of the stupidest religious fanatics I can find. The kind that give us fundamentalists inb4lolwut the bad rep we have. In other words, just tell me if you need a good laugh.

Kay. I'll make sure to get you the link if I come across it again.

I said intellectuals.

I don't remember what exactly. Saw it on YouTube once. It was less "I'm right because scientific reasons." and more "The opposing theories are wrong because scientific reasons." If I find it, I'll send it to you.

I have seen Christians use science to prove their points. Those who are more intellectual will often use the Bible to prove their points as little as possible and go for observable evidence in the world instead. Like I said, I've seen genuine points from both sides.

Fair enough, but I've seen many scientists of different world views take the exact same evidence and claim it to be "undeniable proof" that their particular world view is correct and everyone else is ignorant. Fankly, rather than play the blame game, I'd prefer to just say that none of this cannot be considered a true science because it's not observable.Basically, when I think of sciences, I think of people observing trends and making theories based on said trends. However, almost anything I've read that becomes a full on debate when religion is involved seems more like mystery readers debating on who the killer is before the book is finished. Both sides have reasons to be right, but no side can say with no doubt that they know how it happened until they reach the end of the book.Or maybe I'm completely missing the point. I just wanted to throw that out there.

If we want to get tachnical here, there is no "Beginning of Earth" theory that can be proven or disproven without doubt. I stand by this statement until a way to observe the origin of life becomes possible.

ADHD Sniper sounds like the most hilarious thing ever.