unreality

Right right and I love playing el diablo so much I'm going to hop in again for a second, by that same logic, you're fine with murdering 2-year old people? (you know I'm not suggesting that you are fine with it, I'm suggesting that you're not fine with it (presumably) leading you to conclude that there must be a line somewhere however fuzzy the reality seems to be...)

Okay. We might've already been through 1 round at that point, or not if people are being safe and non-adventurous with their forum games It's fine! (1) you can't change your direction in the middle of dropping stones; once you pick a direction, you go along that line, dropping 1 gem at a time and advancing one space in that direction (wrapping around the board if necessary). In addition to orthogonal and diagonal paths we could have some special paths like a spiral curving from the outside in (and inside out), etc. You can only change your path when you drop the last gem you were carrying into a larger pile and can pick that one up. I think the best way to see would be to play a game (even of regular mancala). I'd be down on MM LC or something (2) the goal is to have more gems in your chest than the other player(s) at the end of the game (which is when all gems are in chests, none on the board)

"Listen not to the words spoken but the truth behind them" (or in this case, neither because both are lacking)

Yes we had some board games rockin' last night and something that struck me was the annoyingness of the two-playered-ness of mancala. The thing with this is that it doesn't necessarily have to be in rigid turn order, it could be more dynamic than that. I don't think it should be totally random and anyone can go whenever but it can definitely be more loose than normal rules and more agile/suited for a forum structure edit: well anyway, if whoever's interested, let me know and we can get this ball rolling if it so happens: (1) unreality (....) lol

Imagine this little concoction to be like a colossal multiplayer mancala game played on a 10-by-10 (or thereabouts) board representing a piratical island upon which treasure has been discovered... little gems, scattered across the sand and palm trees like so many crystal coconuts. In the end you want your treasure chest to have the most gems (gems = good ) and we play until the island is devoid of gems (at which point they all reside in the chests and the winner, well, wins ;D). So we'll divide up the island into territories of sorts depending on how many people want to play in the first round. If you don't know how mancala works (or this variation for this game, seeing as there are all kinds of evolutions of the ruleset), in this game you pick up a pile of gems from within your territory, except you are not restricted to a single direction of travel like in normal mancala (usually counterclockwise if looking at it from above), you may pick any of the four orthogonal directions (we could even go for the four diagonal directions too, I mean this is pretty flexible, I don't know how it will work out haha) and go in that direction until you run out of gems. If you place the last gem in an empty space, you stop there. But if you place the last gem in a populated space (with more gems), you pick all those up and keep going (in the same direction? or would we allow to fork into a different direction at that point? these details can be ironed down after playtesting I'm sure), and you can just keep going and going as long as you can. Whenever you go past your own chest, you drop a gem in as if it was a space, but you skip over everyone else's chests. If you drop the very last gem of your turn into your chest, you get to go again. Originally mancala is populated with 3 gems in every spot although that may be too numerous here. It could be a checkerboarded pattern (so split into two mutually separate sets connected only by diagonals), with one diagonal set being empty spots and the other diagonal set having some gems in them. The other thing still up in the air would be the placement of the chests. I was thinking actually if it was 9-by-9 and we had something like this, where O is a normal space and X is a chest: OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOXXXOOO OOOXOXOOO OOOXXXOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO And then you wrap around, so when you get to the top, you go back to the same column but at the bottom, etc. Also I'd imagine that gem pile in the middle would start off with a ton of gems or something, but it wouldn't be part of anyone's territory and thus could only be picked up as a result of being dropped onto. Well whaddyall think? As you can see it's not a set-in-stone plan or something but I think it could be interesting

I don't think I have a youtube account anymore or I would subscribe, but as it is I shall watch them faithfully and perhaps lend suggestions later if desired

that seems to be the conclusion... The war on drugs, though, is a useful place to take the conversation, though undoubtedly it would involve rehashing how much of a failure it has been, unless we have dissenters to that opinion, which would be a fresh intake onto the topic?

this is it I'm like 99% sure now! haha beat me to it

LEAPT!

snath (it's the shaft of a scythe )

I'm looking forward to it eagerly!

Objectively I don't view humans as superior. All animals are part of a vast interconnected ecosystem and all have a part to play in nature. Humans have even overstepped their boundaries and become a scourge to the Earth, a major problem to the natural balance. We are a virus on the planet. But subjectively, yes, the closer something is on the family tree to me, the more "important" it is for me personally. So whereas I don't raise as much of a fuss when we eat chicken eggs (which aren't even fertilized by the way... eggs can't even hatch!), eating baby lambs is a bigger problem I think, etc. It seems my playing devil's advocate didn't really get us anywhere, but in reality this logic has been in the back of my mind the whole time: In the end, the less humans, probably the better I guess. So fine I concede. I don't like abortions and I still think there's a line to be drawn SOMEWHERE in the process, but I will give a little ground and agree that most women should not be penalized by the state for making this choice...

"The US and Mexican governments have rejected the findings as misguided." gahhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :mad:

by the way, I have no intentions of coming off as mean or condescending, I'm just really really tired And I think this issue is somewhat important (though actually not really that important, I ultimately don't care all that much what the law(s) on abortion is(area) )

Chicken eggs are unfertilized. And it's a non-human animal, which we eat aplenty of (even post-birth animals too, ie, cows etc) but that's not what this debate is about, regardless of whether it is ethically correct to kill other animals. We're talking about killing other humans here. Skin cells can't be made into humans as far as I know. And if they can, it's a procedure that is different from the natural progression of things (whereas the fetus => birth => baby is the natural progression of things and that will indeed happen (with a high success rate) if left alone (i.e. not aborted). To be clear, in the event where the success rate is predicted to be low and the mother's life at risk, I am in favor of abortions, just like any other triage at a hospital. But most childbirths go 'according to plan' and produce living human beings... ...unless interrupted. Then the human being will not exist. That's not the point. What if a living adult is dependent on my nutrients for survival. Like somehow, a portion of everything I eat goes to them. Despite this, you would probably call it murder if I killed my "parasite". I think it's a sad world when we call potential humans "parasites" to justify aborting them for mostly selfish reasons... And a day before it is able to function, it is not alive by your reasoning. Say in 8 hours it will have crossed the grey area and be "alive" by your reckoning and then you support criminilization of aborting it. But now (8 hours before this time), you are somehow pro-abortion?? I'm well aware of the sperm-egg analogy. But it's a matter of probability. At one point does it become quite likely that a new human is going to enter this world? At that point, it is too precious to kill. I could never kill it at least, though you seem to be bent by society into thinking it's okay to do this. So yes, a line must be drawn. But for me, that line is fairly early (once we are fairly positive that a new human will come to exist as a result of what's going on). And yes, past that point, I believe it is murder. Once again, other animals are not the subject here. Dust mites aren't people and aren't as precious to me as people are. But apparently you see dust mites and people as being on the same (rather low) pedestal... This obsession with the present!! What about the future??? What about one day before birth?? It still isn't conscious but it seems like murder now doesn't it? As I said above, I draw the line at the point when it becomes very likely a new human will come to exist. And I think that answers UtF's post too