Nippon

Happy bday

Decent spamming, gj.

Well done :yes:

Well this is unusual ...for a reason

He meant better gear as in more mage instead of n range. Yes, and both of FOE vidders had only n range throughout the trip, the first one only having a DDS as secondary, hence my comment. That accounts for the whole clan? I'm not seeing your logic buddy. The first post said: I replied: While I don't know the truth about whether FIs gear was the reason they lost that fight (as opposed to FOE returning faster and having more skill in PKing), I wanted to point out that FOE didn't entirely depend on superior gear either according to the evidence presented in this topic. Nowhere did I say or suggest that the two available examples account for the whole clan. I suggest immediate eye-surgery unless your dyslexia is inherent.

He meant better gear as in more mage instead of n range. Yes, and both of FOE vidders had only n range throughout the trip, the first one only having a DDS as secondary, hence my comment.

Gj, looks like better returning made you #1 today. Wouldn't complain about gear looking at the first vid.

The real overall F2P and P2P rank: 1. MM 2. FOE 3. FI 4. NME 5. TLP 6. HI 7. Z 8. EOP 9. CP 10. IR Veritas liberabit vos

Grats on your trip. Shoulda given a 1v1 to FI to determine a #2.

F2P 1. MM 2. FI/FOE 3. FI/FOE 4. NME 5. HI 6. TLP 7. CP/EOP 8. CP/EOP

Yet you use TS, why is this? Grats on your win FOE, looked like good fight. Shame about the DDoS.

F2P 1. MM 2. FI/NME 3. FI/NME 4. FOE 5. Gaps n shet P2P 1. FOE 2. FI 3. MM 4. NME 5. Gaps n yeah

Gj. The second vid was well made. Many clans seem to have forgotten the simple truths; spamming and piling win fights. This was as true years ago when clans actually spammed in game (and the secret to how FI maintained #1 for years) as it is now that the only clan that calls names in game at all seems to be NME.

Holy smack. /r/ vid

You are wrong. Study history, and you will notice that for the most part of the last two millenia in the West people have been substantially less free minded and creative, by any standards. This has been a sum of many things. On a practical level, people were too busy making a living to consider their values throughoutly, on the other hand they were too uneducated to do so. Without public education, every man would have to reinvent the wheel so to speak, and not every man has the mental capacity of Socrates. On the other hand, the lack of public, widespread education and limits on the logistics of information ment that whenever those ideas did sprout, they never spread widely among people, as such they died unnoticed. This went on at least until Descartes came along with his cartesian dualism and subjectivity. Coincidental or not, the time was right in many ways. The printing press, technological progress especially in agriculture, etc. All of it shows in restropective that the society was ready to move forward. From this moment some 500 years ago began the process that has presented us with ideas such as human rights and individualism, things that the Roman catholic church violently opposed then and still, albeit less violently, opposes now. Humanism, insofar as we know here in the West, as an ideology is actually very new in the history of mankind.* I'm not making a statement about the existence of a metaphysical entity. Try to look past the methaforical phrase God is dead to see its meaning and how evidently it escapes a great amount of religious fanatics in the West as much so as in the more criticized Islamic nations. It's the greatest hypocrisy of our time that we promote democratic secularism in Islamic nations, as seen during the Arab spring, yet we fail to acknowledge the same faults in our own society and in ourselves. *One could here remind me of my earlier statements regarding objective values be they of religious or any other origin. I admit my fault, but for the sake of my point I'll only aim to show the first step

For the sake of my point, I'll demonstrate here how I arrive at the conclusion "homosexuality is ok" I will use antithesis: "Why should homosexuality not be ok?" I will approach the issue first from a pragmatic point of view, secondly from a ethical point of view. To answer this, I'll ask three more questions: 1. Does homosexuality offend other people? 2. Does accepting homosexuality increase homosexuality? 3. Does not accepting homosexuality decrease homosexuality? I'll answer them 1. Seemingly yes, the thought of homosexuality seems to be repulsive and offensive to some people 2. According to all empiria, no 3. According to all empiria, no 1. seems to be the only practical argument against homosexuality. To counter this, I must ask one more question I. Is homosexuality something that can be changed? Answer I. According to all empiria, no, it can not. Next I will make my ethical argument by asking: Is homosexuality something that should be changed? -> Do I have the right to demand a change in sexuality from another human being? -> Is my sexuality better than his/her sexuality? No. I didn't choose my sexuality, nor did he or she. I have no right to the moral claim that my sexuality is in any way better than his/her. So to conclude Homosexuality is not something that should be changed, nor is it something that could be changed, therefore it should and must be accepted and therefore "homosexuality is ok" Q.E.D ----------------------------------------------------- Now, the thought chain above is obvious to anyone who creates their own values, a similar but usually more complex thought chain takes place in every choice we make, if we are men, not sheep, as Socrates put it.

That by not acknowledging your freedom to choose your own values independent of religional or social institutions, you are rejecting the very thing that makes you human. That by locking yourself to a set of objective(fixed) values you are halting all mental and spiritual progress that you could have as a human being. That by imposing your values on others you are limiting their chances in the same progress, the more(less) influential you are, the more(less) you hinder them. That is something that I can't and don't want to answer for you. If I managed to persuade you of the nature of a god or another, I'd be no better than those institutions that I oppose. We can have a theological argument, but I will not have it here because it's not the topic of the discussion. We are talking about the God of values here (the God of anti-homosexuality, to be precise), in this sense, God is dead. We killed him.

If you base your moral values on civil laws, you are indeed nothing but a mindless doll. You follow scripture or laws, I follow my concscience and my mind. I see you didn't answer any of my questions nor address any of my points, as expected. One day you will realize that God is dead, on that day you will be lost and miserable unless you choose to find human. You can never find or say that god is dead, for a simple fact that you cannot prove it. It's faith, sometimes it can be broken but it doesn't mean it will. The fact is people care about other people's views too much, I believe in a god but I don't force down anything down anyone's throat. In terms of homosexuals, I agree with what bloody said. I'm not here to judge, everyone has a will and a free mind, that's what god gave us, otherwise what would be the whole point of us being here if we didn't have no free will. So I don't care what they do as long as they don't steer me out of my goal. And just so you know, most people run away from humans, they don't turn to humans, due to the fact that they always get hurt, because humans have this scary mind that they can do so many things so I don't agree with you by saying you'll choose human. But obviously this is to its extent I just wanted to prove my point. What I ment with God is dead is what Friedrich Nietzsche ment when he announced this in his work in the 19th century. Namely, not that God is literally dead, but that the modern man had forsaken the scriptures as the ultimate source for moral values. God is dead, the ideal of a transcendental supreme being no longer controls the thought of men, men are free to find their moral values in their own conscience and mind. This, I believe, is something that Zee Kevin above has not yet realized. Again you mistake my purpose when I say choose to find human. What I mean is not that you should look for anything in others, but that you should find humanity in yourself, find the things that separate you from a puppet or a mindless beast, create yourself and overcome yourself in an endless process, find your ideals and excel in them. What makes us human? Creativity and imagination. This is what lacks in all other forms of life. Creating, ourselves and our values, this is what makes us human.

If you base your moral values on civil laws, you are indeed nothing but a mindless doll. You follow scripture or laws, I follow my concscience and my mind. I see you didn't answer any of my questions nor address any of my points, as expected. One day you will realize that God is dead, on that day you will be lost and miserable unless you choose to find human.

Are you perhaps mistaking consciousness for conscience?

Do you oppose masturbation as well? Clearly semen is supposed to go into a woman's ******, as nature intended. What about birth control? Certainly you'd oppose the unnatural waste of this God-given right to reproduce? If you are consistent in your principles in this manner, I greet you as a fellow man although your values are very different from mine. If you pick and choose your values from the moral basket called scripture you are nothing but a despisable puppet to me. Here is where I stand: Anything that two people choose to do wilfully with no harm to each other or others, is not(in my eyes) only right as opposed to wrong, it is the right of all rights. It is a derivative of the fundamental principle that guides any and all moral values I have; the right to personal freedom and self-determination. Therefore, while I respect your freedom to hold your principle of only having a **** inside a woman's ****** as a means to reproduction as the only correct way of sexual behavior, I can and will not respect any attempt from your part to limit the freedom of others to put their **** inside whatever the f they want for whatever reasons they have. If any of this remains unclear, please let me know and I'll attempt to rephrase.

Gratz on #4 P2P.

Why would he ask if this is true or false then, when it's clearly what Obama said? Unless of course he was unaware that Obama had stated so, but in that case he should've presented a question, not a poll (or just used google). But who the f knows, dem 4ners

Um... what is your question? Is Obama gay? I doubt, since he's been married to a woman for 20 years and has 2 children. What the duck, are you a bit simple or sumthin?

P2P 1. FI 2. FOE 3. MM 4. NME 5. EOP/TLP 6. Le Rest