Quantcast

Jump to content


MeWantCookies

Member Since 19 May 2011
Offline Last Active Sep 17 2011 07:15 AM

#1490271 System For Finding Islands

Posted by MeWantCookies on 23 July 2011 - 02:13 PM

I know most of us figured this out already, but this petpage has a great graphic to go along with the strategy.

If you have the opportunity to click on all the stars, you'll have found all possible islands in your map. Remember, when you find an island or a treasure chest, you get an extra search.
Visit Petpage With Strategy

Spoiler

Edited to add image to spoiler.


#1489675 The Small Islands ARE Krawk Island

Posted by MeWantCookies on 22 July 2011 - 08:46 AM

I just saw this in the neoboard, and I thought I'd share after I confirmed it. The small islands we're finding are bits and pieces of Krawk Island. When you're not logged in, and you try to visit the Shanty, you get this message:
"This land of scurvy swashbucklers suffered a tremendous blow, however, when a mysterious sea creature sent pieces of the island scattering in every direction.

Help in the effort to restore this magnificent island by becoming a part of the search and rescue effort. In order to participate, you must log in or sign up.

We've already found Krawk Island. It seems like the event is an attempt to put the island back together.


#1486504 Why People hate "Christians"

Posted by MeWantCookies on 17 July 2011 - 05:45 AM

You may be right in assuming that the original post was redacted, but we don't really have proof either way. Although there's a chance, what reason does someone have to make it up? There are plenty of other cases of hate-speech in the name of religion (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church), there's no need to fabricate yet another instance.

As to your upbringing... it probably occurred before Facebook, so the issues raised here were non-issues then. And you can't really speak to how other people were treated in your church. At least not credibly. In law it's called hearsay. While you were treated fairly, you were also probably a practicing Christian youth, which gives you a certain standing within the community. Don't compare your situation to the original poster's - they aren't similar enough to warrant it.

As to your ad-hominem attacks on the poster, well this is the debate forum. Find a fault with his argument, not his typing. the fact that you personally know of no one who would speak to someone that way does little to sway me: it's doubtless that they exist. See previous comments on Westboro Baptist Church.


Westboro Baptist "Church" (I use that term lightly because it is made up exclusively of members of one family) is a great example for people to hold up, but the truth is that is a gross exception to the rule. And even there the only people involved are related and brain-washed. In addition to that, it is doubtful that anyone would voluntarily offer assistance by way of community service to an organization like Westboro Baptist Church and then be offended at how they are treated.

My point was that the original post is written in a very peculiar way. Redactions or not, it depicts:
  • An un-provoked attack on a former volunteer by a current minister due to his having several girls as friends on Facebook. This could reasonably occur if we assume there is more justification for the "minister" to accuse the volunteer of fornicating. We could be missing info here, and it's still realistic;
  • A volunteer responding who doesn't seem outraged or offended at being accused of something. Instead, for some unknown reason, he states he doesn't fornicate but suffers with masturbation. To top it all off, he initiates further communication by asking the minister to respond with his general welfare. This isn't just about me and and how i would respond. This is getting unrealistic; and
  • The minister responds with nothing short of a rant against "guys like you" for "jackingoff and having sex." This doesn't seem bizarre to anyone else? This kind of combatant, overly aggressive communication is very common on the internet, but not generally among anyone over the age of 18.
There is undoubtedly something else going on in that initial post. Perhaps not on the part of the original poster, he may have received the exchange in its current state. Crazy attracts crazy, but non-crazy people tend to steer clear of crazy. In no world would this volunteer donate his time to this ministry if he would be spoken to that way, and then initiate further communication with the minister after being accused of one thing and admitting to another.

You're right, this is the debate forum. The original poster introduced a debate that included questionable information and asked what our opinions were on "this bull crap." What I wrote is my opinion which is no less reliable than the original post.

My goal is not to sway you that these people do not exist. My goal is to introduce the possibility that the original post may be a less than accurate depiction of what occurred. Shado said this is why people hate Christians. If people hate Christians because several bad seeds are exaggerated, taken out of context, and significantly edited...shouldn't we be talking about that?

Offtopic aside: I counted no less than three people in this thread who had between 500 and 550 posts. Do we need any more proof that advanced member requirements are in need of an update?


http://www.neocodex....ements-changed/
I'm pretty sure they have already been updated and the 500 post requirement is gone. =)


#1485422 Sex Offender Allowed To Watch Unlimited CP

Posted by MeWantCookies on 14 July 2011 - 01:52 PM

I couldn't find anything in the article that stated the age of the boys, but the fact that American law considers anyone under 18 a child is somewhat ridiculous. Sexual maturity is reached in the early teens, so there really isn't any reason to have age of consent higher than that. One could argue that emotional maturity doesn't come until much later, but this is a product of society treating physically mature individuals as children. In our eagerness to protect children we are preventing them from being able to grow up.


Different states in the US have different ages of consent. The age of consent also varies depending on the the age of both participants, not just the youngest one. In other words, several states make any sexual contact with a child under the age of 14 or 16 automatically non-consensual. In some states, a 16 - 18 year old can consent to sex as long as the other participant is between 16 and 21. The whole idea is to protect minors (anyone under 18) from being manipulated by a significantly more mature adult while at the same time not punishing teenagers for doing what they do.

The fact that sexual maturity is reached so early is an argument pedophiles often make, but it's flawed. The age of sexual maturity has not yet adapted to the type of society we live in today. 300 years ago when people seldom lived past the age of 35, it made sense for the whole maturity timeline to be moved up. People had to get married and begin procreating at 13-15 so that they had ample time to raise those offspring to 13-15 before they died. Today, in the States at least, getting married at 15 is the exception because there is no hurry to procreate. A couple could have children well into their 30s and still be able to raise them before reaching old age. There is no rush to reach emotional maturity, there's no rush to begin procreation, and the current societal system is not designed to encourage procreation of those under 14.


#1481694 How safe is ABing?

Posted by MeWantCookies on 08 July 2011 - 08:26 AM

You should check the AB guides first:
http://www.neocodex....20#entry1221920
http://www.neocodex....-abrosia-style/

Then skim the other hundreds of posts on this exact same topic:
http://www.neocodex...._1#entry1451586
http://www.neocodex...._1#entry1472198


#1480572 Donating Sperm and Eggs

Posted by MeWantCookies on 06 July 2011 - 11:25 AM

yeah like you said the process is less involved with guys and hence why a lot of males do use it as a source of income. I personally would never bother with it as i find it immoral (imo) and totally defeats the purpose of enjoying a family of your own. (although in saying that, i have a couple of mates who have donated sperm and they have a couple of kids each).


How is it immoral? Do you think adoption is immoral? What about couples who use a surrogate to carry their genetic child? I don't know how you could draw a line at sperm/egg donation and not include both of those things too.


#1476436 Gay Marriage Bill Passes for New York

Posted by MeWantCookies on 28 June 2011 - 06:32 PM

I'm so glad that I saw this in the news like 20 minutes before I checked neocodex. The day I start learning big news like this on a neopet cheating site is the day I probably need to cut back on my game time...


#1474154 mystery pic

Posted by MeWantCookies on 23 June 2011 - 08:43 PM

Posted Image MP #1019


Answer is National Neopian Bank Shopkeeper (or Teller; the wording is a judgment call).
To check for yourself, rotate the mpic and find the spot in the top left of the image.

Posted Image