User talk:Koda Kumi/archive1

No. I do not care anymore about any of you. The only person I care about now is MYSELF. You think I am a nice person? Well, I was. But not anymore. You disgust me. Yes, you, who is reading this right now. You probably think you are helpful and all that shit. You probably think "people like me for what I do, I got to be in the center of all the attention now!" Yes, I am talking to you, Raine! Whatever, I do not like you, and I am not like you. And never will be.

I do not like any of you, all of you awfully generic males and females. None of you dare to be different. None of you has what I, the face of judgment, the blue-haired rebel, have.

Why does everyone has to look like everyone else? Because those "Idol" shows on TV say so? Because those movie stars say so? Because you do not know any better? Well I do. I AM MYSELF, and therefore I am better than each and every one of you. I do not smoke or drink, have my hair like no one else has, and dyed it blue. I think only logical and oppose any religion in existence. I like to walk alone and rarely plan ahead. That is me, I AM MYSELF, and I am not afraid to be myself. Your "etiquette" and religions make me sick. I live my life the way I want to, and do not need ANYONE to tell me how I need to live.

So, be generic, be stupid, be like everyone else. Or better, do not. Try to be like me, and live a better life. Koda Kumi 17:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What brought this on, exactly? elix Omni 18:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What shade of blue is it, Koda? --neshot. 19:00, 3 October 2010.

About half of my strands of hair are close to teal, the other half is dark blue. Koda Kumi 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to live the way you want to, I tell you. :p I mean, hey Fury. How's things? ^^ (Frizz 12:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC))

You should know better than to talk to me. Read the first line of this segment before placing something here again. Koda Kumi 12:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, I wouldn't be me if I actually paid attention to someone telling me to do something. Actually I'm more inclined to do the quite opposite, which is also relying on other people I suppose. I actually do know better, I can read that line like a billion times and yet I still do what I want. Surprise, the same is what you are saying about yourself, in a though somewhat aggressive manner. So I choose to say hello to you in a nice way, which you can't possibly handle in a normal way, it seems. Well normal to me anyway. That while I only wanted to know how an ex-guildy was doing. I would apologize, but that's highly pointless, since you don't really care. Ok, ok I'll stop talking now. ^^ (Frizz 12:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC))

Blue hair is ugly, seriously. - Mini Me 14:49, 11 October, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you're seriously a blue-haired rebel? I thought you just played too much Fire Emblem. Pics, please, that's more than slightly cool. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up

You need to create a link to your archive. Misery 20:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That is what I mean with needless bureaucracy. I do not "need" to do anything. Your time of sitting on your laurels has lasted long enough. I am far more suitable for your place because I do not pester other people with archives nobody cares about but think logical. Those archives are much of meaningless squabbling, so a link to it is just a waste. If you think it needs to be linked, place it right above my declaration of independence. Koda Kumi 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok cool, I handled it for you. Misery 07:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

NPA

I do believe calling someone a "maggot" is considered breach of the No Personal Attacks policy so please do try to be more civil. Thank you and have a nice day. - Reanimated X 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All of you people are hypocrites, pandering to each other like gelatinous maggots. You all want to form your own little cliques so you can pat each other on the back, all adopting each other's views because of the "society". Well, I do not. Society can kiss my arse if it forces people to live like everyone else. It disgusts me to no limit. Koda Kumi 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

:/

I'm not really sure what's gotten into you, but your recent posts are unacceptable. I can see trying to break out of the mold or whatever people are into these days, but there are rules on the wiki you need to follow or you will not be allowed to participate. Misery kindly reminded you to link to your archive, and you blew him off. Reanimated warned you against personal attacks, and while I think he mis-interpreted your post on misery's talk, your response to him wasn't acceptable either. Take a day off and re-think what you are doing on this wiki. -Auron 21:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what you may think, I know exactly what I am doing. Standing up for myself and everyone who feels different than the norm, like me. Though I agree with you that I could have chosen to be less aggressive about it.

There are many people like me. People who feel that behaving according to the norm and looking like the ideal is unlike human nature. Humans should be free to change, free to be unique, free to express themselves and to think the way we want to. But yet we are oppressed every day again, by the media, by our work, and worst of all, by religion. These people like me are probably all around you, but you will not notice anything because they do not talk about it. I just happen to be one of them who does talk, and I will not allow anyone, especially Misery, to SHUT ME UP! Koda Kumi 21:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The desire to step out of the mould is always admirable, and as a Math teacher, it's exactly what I encourage. Without people pushing/bending/rethinking the boundaries, there will be no growth. But the caveat that you may have overlooked is that in all systems there are set structures which need to be respected. While I'm happy to see a student of mine validly prove that 2+2=0, I remind them that their view does not change the facts laid down in mod 10 arithmetic. Express yourself, yes, but if you want to garner respect for your stance, then show proper courtesies to others and the medium you employ. G R E E N E R 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The norm is over-rated, and trying to find exactly what the "norm" is... probably a futile venture. I think mormons, catholics, other religious people, wall-street bankers, republicans, far-left liberals, organic foods freaks, vegetarians (not indian vegetarians), vegans, hippies, neocons, skin heads, apple drones, Paul Watson and his lackeys, ALF, PETA, antigay rights activists, etc are all highly abnormal... yet I think things like yaoi/yuri manga, keeping a glock 26 in your purse, hunting, having a 7.62mm empty cartridge as a key chain for a girl, tattoo's and piercings (I personally don't have any)... are all normal for me. But everyone's views are different, and everyone's list of what's abnormal/normal is different. Also identifying what the "ideal" is... probably another futile venture.... I think tom cruise looks like a creepy serial killer but not everyone agrees with me. I think adam lambert is cute while I find justin beiber vomit worthy disgusting. I think miss america 2010, carrie prisaan or whoever it was looks like mean snatchy bitch... but then again most disagrees with me, and yet I think racheal maddow and cat cora are pretty, so go figure. Everyone's views of ideal image differs quite a bit from person to person imo. Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as "normal" or "ideal". --Lania 23:18, 04 October 2010 (UTC)

The ideal is what we are told to be, "normal" is what we are told to do. But I do not like being told. I tell them to shut up and respect people like me. Respect. The word is used so often, and most often by people who do not even know what it means. In the Netherlands, muslims often ask for respect, but have no respect for homosexuals, prostitutes, and people who have valid criticism about their faith. Well, my respect for them is gone now. Like my respect for Misery.

Lania, I agree with you almost completely. Everyone is different, but nobody takes that into account. What is a gothic? Nothing but a style of clothing. They do not all think alike. We are all humans. Individuals. I AM ME, and nothing will change that. All those organizations mentioned require people to stop thinking and let a couple of people do the thinking for you. That goes straight against human nature. Has society really become this retarded over the years? Koda Kumi 17:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC) oh, and if you call Emilie Autumn a gothic I will just remove your contrib, do not bother

Expressing your individuality with different hair colors is something you should be ashamed of. You are recycled materia in an evolutionary process, you connect with the world through fragile organs in a substitute for an eco-system called society that we're all adapting to. All of our conversations are about information no matter how you see it. When it comes down to it, you are no one, you have no individuality, the more you try to be different than "normal people" the less of a personality you really have on your own. --Venomoth 17:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also; I'm a teenage werewolf. :3 I'm not trying to intimidate people. :3 I have a DA account where I upload my furry art :3 :3 :3, poems about darkness and pictures of an emo/goth character who miss his girlfriend with all the angst in the world. x3 --Venomoth 18:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Normalcy is relative, which makes it very difficult to talk about. Expressing individuality (how you seem to be using it) is paradoxical. Good news (for people who dislike paradoxes), you have not actually been expressing individuality. I like your hair color though, especially the teal part. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Even the uncategorized are categorized. Such is the way of science. --Riddle 03:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your responses are downright sickening. Expressing individuality by looking like no one else and acting like no one else does is something that people should not be ashamed of, it should be encouraged when there are so many places where people are punished for it. People like me do not TRY to be different, we ARE different. "Society" just does not understand that. Koda Kumi 11:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, all of your actions are caused by the society you're trying to adapt to, the brain in your head is what's making your fingers type these words. Do you believe there is anything else inside your head? Is reality sickening to you? Perhaps you can join a religion! I just wanna know if you see other people with dyed hair as "rebels" that should be let into high positions, and not just lonely people not getting enough attention without. --Venomoth 11:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Venomoth, please stop pushing your philosophy and thoughts. It doesn't really address anything Koda is talking about, and telling someone that they should be ashamed of something, that you have no individuality, or that you should join a religion isn't helpful.

Koda, I don't think being different for the sake of being different is really necessary. Everyone is already very different from each other. No one has the same face that you have. No one has the same personality that you have. No one has the same DNA that you have... unless you have an identical twin ^_^... But even then, no one has the same finger print, even between twins. Collectively, no one has the same exact set of traits that you have. One can say that everyone can be categorized, but you would need millions of categories to do that, with trillions of unique combinations. To simplify what I'm trying to say, everyone already is expressing their own individuality, and no one is the same. --Lania 15:20, 06 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point I could as well put the words "I think Anarchy would work!" in mister "I just dyed my hair and I want the whole small internet community i'm in to know that I'm a completely different person just cause of it"'s big uneducated mouth. Without really aiming at helping at all, I'm just having fun on my own. --Venomoth 15:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Without really aiming at helping at all, I'm just having fun on my own." Umm... yeah, that's called trolling when you start saying things that are inflammatory just to cause unrest so that you can have fun. --Lania 17:49, 06 October 2010 (UTC)

Koda, feel free to remove Venomoth's comments here and the replies to them as GWW:NPA. Do try to keep in mind what Auron said at the beginning of the section, though. Venomoth, your behavior is unacceptable. Enjoy your ban. - Tanetris 18:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I feel I know where you come from since lately I myself too have been processing similar thoughts on individuality, or the lack of it, feeling a bit of anxiety sometimes even out of little things such as riding the bus to school every morning, like everyone else too. Let's call this "identity crisis". I'm also very much at unease with the thought of identifying myself only as a meaningless part of a bigger organism which doesn't really pay attention to my own thoughts and feelings. My approach to the subject, if you allow me to label as such, was probably a little more "rational", though. I'll just try to provide you with some food of thought which you can either take or ignore, it's not much of my concern. Some shit may be obvious, but it may give you new perspective. If the wall of text disturbs you, you can also just read highlights. I'm verbose. And philosophy runs out of hands. Also remember that philosophy like this holds no practical value.

First; it is in a sense quite obvious; society isn't a sentient being. It has no feelings for or against you. It treats you according to a set system which strives for optimality, but is nowhere near it, and humanly outside its reach. This society is just a concept with no ability whatsoever to treat you as an individual being. An obsessive sense of individuality is possibly just an extension of our yearn to be accepted by our peers, which given a larger, modern, scale (provided to you by the revolutionizing internet) will go completely nuts on a planet with an estimate of 6,873,400,000 people. Tl;dr: "Society" can't treat everyone the way they feel they deserve to be treated.

Secondly, even though there are big differences in thought patterns, personalities, behavior, etc, the fundamental psychological processes behind all healthy human beings are very much the same. You'd be surprised how common it is to experience this "identity crisis" too. These realizations actually didn't help me much. They just made me feel more human.

Thirdly, and I have previously been criticized for offering this perspective which was called redundant (though very essential for me); Every face in the mass has a personality and a conscience, just as much as you do, which just isn't always noted nor reflected from their behavior or the look on their face. Truly assimilating this had a big impact on my perceiving towards individuality, as well as behavior towards people over the internet (it's actually, actually, actually a human a little like me there behind the screen whose emotional signals just are lost in the 2-dimensionality of the virtual world), so it might be of relevance when you go about to picture humanity and society as a whole.

I sometimes ascribe certain attributes to (note: crude generalization) "terrible social backgrounds", in this case → negative view on humanity and normality, which is essential if handling things like human identity. Over time I've come to be more ok with other people. Do note, though, that not everybody needs the same sense of identity that you crave.

Depending on definition, either everything or then nothing is normal, and it very much comes down to your ability to rationalize. So unless you go to existential extremes like "I don't want to be a human" (It's not that bad. Optimism!), it's not impossible to see everyone as more or less unique. Of course people remind of each other, but that's how things are.

Also, let's count some probabilities. I'm more intelligent than ~98% of humanity, belonging to a small minority of "Swedish speaking Finns" with their own unique culture, I'm raised Mormon (0.1% of Finnish population) and have later on in life left (in UK, 1/12 kids leave their parent's religion), I come from a somewhat wealthy family, I identify myself as bisexual, and am still only turning fucking 17 (putting me at a certain small percentage of population). And do you know what this feeling of uniqueness has given me? It's certainly not the thought that I'll find a life-partner like me.

My two cents; Either suck it up and fuck uniqueness which holds no practical value, figure out why you're unique and so much about that, or then implement some of the above reasoning and see why no two people just are the same. And hey, thinking like there's someone very much like you out there isn't all so bad :> 

Oh, and cute tl;dr, isn't it? --DANDY ^_^ -- 18:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Read highlights for tl;dr. --DANDY ^_^ -- 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a fun fact: Wisdom is knowledge put into action. Without action, wisdom cannot be expressed and knowledge serves no purpose. You may be because you think, but it is action or inaction that defines your being. Self-proclamation without evidence is moot. Dying one's hair a popular color/shade does not make one an individual. If it did, there would be only one human in the world who has ever dyed its hair. What constitutes an individual is uniqueness. Uniqueness is best expressed through extremes such as but not limited to best, worst, most and least. The best way to go about achieving such an extreme is to dwell less on one's individuality and more on the task to attain it. Ironically, once such a title is achieved, one often no longer cares about the reason for it. At which point, the struggle for individuality is revealed as insignificant. Teddy Dan, yo. 05:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just because I said I dyed my hair blue somewhere in my Epic Matt Hardy-like Heel Turn Speech, people assume it is the only reason I am unique. Well, it is not, but apparently you are no different from all the other people around me I despise so much. Evidence for me being unique can be found in most contribs I make. Even if I do not sign it, you would know it is me because of the way I write (count the number of apostrophes in all of my contribs on this page, for example).

Individuality is insignificant? You are insignificant to me, the Face of Judgment! Individuality is what I value more than anything. Free from religious restraints, free from social boundaries, free from caring about anyone's opinion about my appearance or behavior. It should be embraced, and celebrated every year. Until then, see me as a shining beacon atop a mountain of mediocrity, as an enlightenment...

As the Blue-Haired Rebel. Koda Kumi 17:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

These people actually have valid points they want to discuss with you, but all you ever add is some dumb shit about how they're not worth anything to you and then stress that you've dyed your hair, effectively making you super special and a rebel. 9/10 man, keep up the good work! -Cursed Angel 19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You quoted me on your userpage, which means you see me as an exemplar for everyone on this wiki. I applaud you. Koda Kumi 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lololo

You think I'm normal. — Raine Valen 14:43, 11 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't try to be the center of attention; it just happens. — Raine Valen 14:52, 11 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Okay who the fuck cares about being "normal" or not. Labeling oneself as a "blue-haired rebel" is also just fucking nice :< --DANDY ^_^ -- 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It just happens? The amount of effort you have put into this site shows otherwise. People praise such efforts, they like all the helpful and creative stuff that you write. But you want something out of it too, otherwise you would not be doing all of it. You want to be adored, you are suffering from pride, the first sin. The flaw of so many great creative minds. Also, I already know you are not "normal". Koda Kumi 19:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You know those seven sins were just made up in the medieval period. They have no theological base. Plus you abhor religion, so why are you talking about sin? elix Omni 19:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the time I spend here is spent in pursuit of becoming the center of attention.

It is nice that some people like some of the things that I write. However, you seem to be under the impression that I write things so that people can like them; this is not the case.

I do post here because I want something out of it, though. It isn't adoration, as you seem to believe: if this were the case, why would I post things that offend certain crowds? For example, I wrote an entire article asserting that RtL players are bad at the game; would this earn me their adoration? I basically told Regina that she was terrible at her job (very kindly, of course); what love would that garner me? I'm posting this here, to you; do you believe that I do it because I want you to love me? No, I'm not quite that interested in what people think of me.

I post here for several other reasons, though. First of all, it's easy organization. Wiki formatting makes it very easy for me to organize my thoughts; it's lightyears easier than sorting through a dozen .txt files (yes, that is how my Aether design work is organized), so it benefits me. Secondly, it's easily accessible to me and to others. If I want to share something related to one of my projects here, I can simply link them to the relevant page. If I'm not on my own laptop (which I currently am not, speak of the devil), I can still access my pages here without any sort of special software. Third, this wiki offers me a plethora of relevant opinions for most anything that I'd post here. I'd never turn down free proofreading; would you? These are simple, tangible benefits to posting Guild Wars-, GWW-, and ArenaNet-related thoughts here.

I'm a designer at heart, a visionary. If I can understand a system, I can design a better one. Any system that I can touch, I change. It's as natural for me as eating (more so, even: eating often takes a backseat to my design work). Sure, some people may like some of the things that I do, but that's generally not why I do it.

You were right about the pride thing, though. I strive for perfection in things that I care about (and all-but-ignore other things; my professors say that I "don't apply myself", which is 112% true), and I am proud when I create things that I want. I am not sure what pride has to do with a hunger for admiration, though. When I know that I have done something properly, damn what everyone else says. Fortunately, people here are generally sensible enough to understand when I'm right. Even if it takes a bit of explanation. — Raine Valen 18:18, 12 Oct 2010 (UTC)

That's not pride. Pride is when I tell you that she posts these things to wiki specifically so I can proofread them and give my thoughts as a fellow designer, and that other advantages (formatting, ease of change, ease of linking, and such) are secondary to making her work easily visible to me. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Something to think about...

In Biology lecture, yesterday, we were discussing biotechnology. Specifically, we were talking about a strand of DNA that produced the protein BT, and how when that gene is stuck into a plant, the BT serves as a 'natural' pesticide. Of course, a company (Mon Sans? something like that) decided to claim the copyright to that gene. If your crop(s) have that gene in their genome and you didn't buy Mon Sans' seeds, you have to give up your harvest since you it's technically not yours.
Here is what I am trying to discuss, or at least entertain some deep-thinking: Companies can go out and patent genes and claim them as 'their own.' Which means that, legally, you don't own your fundamental physical and emotional make up—your own genome. Ownership of your genome is split amongst various companies claiming that they own gene X or gene Y. I'm not sure how much of a reality that the aformentioned scenario is, but it's a scary thought, nonetheless. --Riddle 17:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I just want to clear something up here a bit... Legally, the agricultural companies don't own the actual genetic code, but the processes involved in making their seeds. Monsanto has patented over 400 different seed varieties, with some set to expire in a few years. While many of the news articles make it sound like companies are patenting the actual gene it self, but in actuality they patent the seed that contain the genetic code using the assay described in the patent. That being said, since the year 2000 over 8000 different patents have been filed for genetic testing on human genes. Since there are only a few commercially viable genetic testing methodologies, all the companies have to do is file patents on all the testing methods for a gene they want to protect their intellectual property. This effectively makes it impossible for 3rd party companies to perform testing on genes w/o violating copyrights even though the company does not actually own the copyright. One of the most controversial cases in the past and right now is the BRCA1/2 gene (breast cancer genes originally awarded in 1990's) patent held by Myriad. Their patent covers ANY diagnostic testing on ALL the mutations that have been discovered for the BRCA1&2 gene... Even though they don't legally own the actual gene, they might as well be, since no one else can really do anything with the gene w/o Myriad's permission. So what does this really mean for the rest of us? When we get tested for some kind of mutation, the sample has to be sent off to the company owning the patent, or the kit has to be purchased by the company. This drives up testing costs, and patients don't have the freedom to have it tested by the company of their choosing. In the future though there probably will be patents for certain gene sets that determine certain desirable features for a baby...like intelligence, eye color... and companies would be making patented human eggs and embryos for in vitro fertilization... Now that's scary, since that technology is already available, and many genetics companies are already trying to nail down the set of genes for each feature so they can patent the "gene set"! I can see a commercial in the future like like...Designer humans from Dior.. --Lania 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, the patent that Myriad had on BRCA genes were overturned this year in a federal lawsuit the ACLU filed. --Lania 18:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

While it may be possible to copy the way a certain human being reacts to his environment, that human being's thoughts and emotions are formed mostly through events that happened in his or her past, influence of close friends and relatives, media, and education. Gene copying may produce children with more favorable traits, but it will in no way make them identical in their thought processes. Koda Kumi 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfect logic operates the same in every situation, and the human brain is already capable of perfect logic (as it turns out, other evolutionary traits like "instinct", "emotion", and other nonsense get in the way). The only errors created by a perfectly logical being would be those generated by missing or incorrect information; even in those cases, the gap in correct data manifests itself in the form of a mistake a staggering one time before it is rejected (in those cases where the source of the error cannot be determined in one trial, the incorrect data are systematically eliminated); this is the essence of perfect sanity.

Unfortunately, though, we're evolutionarily crippled: the potential for perfect rationality and sanity have been a long time coming and, in the mean time, basic reactionary thinking has enabled survival on a very basic level and, accordingly, taken a genetic front-seat, so to speak. Even more unfortunate, though, is that humanity doesn't even seem to be evolving toward perfection because the evolutionary process of natural selection, in practice, doesn't strive for perfection so much as a minimum level of feasibility. As if natural selections' "barely scraping by" nature was not bad enough on its own, we've decided, as a society, to largely counteract even that in favor of a misplaced moral obligation to create some threadbare semblance of equality among members of the species.

I'd even go so far as to say that we're basically fucked as a species and, because we're naturally hierarchical, we'll attempt to crush any other species that threatens our dominant status: we've effectively fucked the Earth along with ourselves. Good job, everyone. — Raine Valen 21:14, 14 Oct 2010 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "maximum effectiveness, minimum effort". Major Banker CEO's embody that, and they've gotten there and stay there by fucking over everyone else. Work 24 hours a week, earn hundreds of millions of dollars... maximum wage, minimum hours, the embodiment of Darwinian economics. Who ever though of saying "survival of the fittest" should be shot. Should have been "survival of the most exploitative". Unless humanity can transcend evolution, and change our fate... I agree with Raine, we're fucked. --Lania 23:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

People using the word "fucked" should be shot, seriously, shut up. Life doesn't need all of these random shots in the dark species and their little eco systems. And even if we blow ourselves up, billions of life doesn't mean a thing if only a few bacteria things can adapt to an almost dead and nuclear bombed earth. --Venomoth 05:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's say that you were not going to die naturally. Sometime in the future, would you like your existence ended due to others' stupidity (say, WW3 or 4)? The sane answer is "no", for most intents and purposes (including this one).

I couldn't care less about some random species of fish going extinct (unless there was some tangible benefit to said fish species continuing to exist, of course), but I would rather not be extinct, personally (obviously, I have a tangible benefit in this case). Humanity's "pushing-toward-self-destruction" trend is bad for me because I do not want to die or lose those aspects of society that do provide me with a tangible benefit. — Raine Valen 20:44, 15 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Would you really want a perfect species? One that makes only the most logical choice? Every outcome decision making wise can be predetermined, given you have all the information and variables. Who am I going to marry? Does it matter, if everyone is perfect and thinks the same way? What will I eat? Does it matter, if there is one logical choice? I personally would rather live an eventful life full of hard choices and struggle and mistakes (the doom of our species is the price we pay for this) than live a perfect, boring life, with no choices. All in all, I'm selfish enough to say that unless the species is wiped out during my lifetime, it's moot to speculate. -- Tha Reckoning 07:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

w:Uncertainty Principle. Even with perfect logic, we can't trace every ramification of every decision indefinitely into the future. Given perfect data, we could, but that's an impossible given and will remain such if said principle is, indeed, accurate.

To answer your intended question, though, no: I enjoy challenge very much.

On further consideration, it occurs to me that there are several emotional characteristics that are not, necessarily, directly detrimental to the species. For example, competitive spirit is arguably a huge positive asset that stems from a hierarchical nature. Where it becomes detrimental, though, is in the responses that said creative spirit can evoke (e.g. losing a competition can bring about destructive anger and vindictiveness).

I'd argue that all emotional positives have a logical base, though, which would not be absent in a perfectly logical society. To spare you a far more detailed treatise, I'll skip to the conclusion: pleasure and pain need not be absent in perfect rationality, but they cannot interfere with rationality as they do now. — Raine Valen 20:44, 15 Oct 2010 (UTC)

I would say that creating a perfect rationality is impossible. There are enough traits a human being can have that are both positive and negative in some way. Think about legalisation of marijuana, limiting influence of religions, and being able to order a Thai bride by credit card. How would the perfect mind think about those subjects? I do not think there is an 'ideal' solution for such problems. And it becomes even more complicated when there are impefect minds involved, each with their own ideas and (pre-)judgments of the 'ideal', who can influence the perfect rationalist in various ways. Koda Kumi 10:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that all beings are perfectly rational, the perfect mind would agree with the allowance or disallowance of those things (whichever turned out to be best, logically). Further, these things wouldn't need to be allowed or disallowed, since every individual would share the belief that they were either beneficial or detrimental. — Raine Valen 20:44, 15 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Late reaction, but I think you are wrong. Marijuana is a drug harvested for outrageously low wages, but think about the crime rate. It will drop enormously because people do not have to step to the other side of the law to get high. It will become far cheaper so addicted people have more money left for treatments (not American so I do not know how the new healthcare covers it). But will the legal marijuana be detrimental for America's status? Or will problems just be shifted?

Religion is dangerous if left unchecked, and should be banished, for all religions are cults. But we rationalists are in the minority, and so we cannot be hostile towards people of faith. They will exist, but where is the balance of power? Where should the line be drawn between blasphemy and freedom of speech? Where should the border lie of religion's influence on the media? Those are not questions a single human being can give a straight answer on.

Millionaires are able to buy young Thai girls to marry them. It is a profitable business, and these girls have no idea what they are being used for. They will regret it later, of course, but it is far better than ending up in prostitution or criminality. It also pays good, and has no great effect on their future. Sure, there is a chance they will leave the business with emotional scars, but at least they will leave it wealthy, which cannot be said about most of the Thai people. Will that outweigh each other? Are the risks involved worth it? Koda Kumi 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of arguments for legalizing marijuana like "reduction in crime". If marijuana is legalized, it will cut off a significant portion of the mexican drug cartel's cash supply, which will cause them to shift to other types of drugs to market to the american public. I hate to admit it but America as a country is really really really addicted to drugs. From legal drugs like alcohol to prescriptions like vicodin, and illegal drugs like heroin, we consume more than any other country in the world. I think there is something fundamentally broken with the american culture that makes drugs such a high demand product here, and legalizing marijuana will probably exacerbate the problem.

American politics is completely intertwined with religion. A candidate's lack of religious belief or inappropriate religious belief will make him/her unelectable. A Muslim will never get elected to office for that reason because they are all terrorists according to various senators... So we end up with a bunch of idiots on capitol hill that preach about things they don't understand and think about nothing, while they accuse people on the other side as delusional, psychotic, or insane... Or they might just tell you that the devil is inside you when you try to explain the intricacies of the economy and how just cutting taxes won't help the economy. There is no such thing as rational though with religion as it's parroting whatever your religious leaders taught you... and they are training the masses to parrot other "talking points" from the religious media to "spread the word" like Glenn Beck is Jesus or Barack obama is satan or, barack obama is jesus...

Human trafficking will exist as long as men have dicks. You never hear about millionaire women buying hot young Philippians men for husbands...--Lania 00:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's true, my dick compels me to traffic in humans. elix Omni 00:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck?

Are you having some kind of identity crisis or something? --Master Briar 10:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard

"Violating 1RV times despite being warned about it, personal attacks, and being a douche towards others who want to correct him. Koda Kumi 13:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)"

Calling someone a douche is also a personal attack, so don't do. -- pling 14:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

However, its true.--Neil2250 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. -- pling 20:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think so. If the user in question refuses to cooperate despite saying he just wants to help, and refuses to listen to the reasoning of others because they are not high-ranked in GvG, the guy is being a douche.

Also, can you do something about the person who refuses to use the preview function? Koda Kumi 20:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hey, I say your post on Magic's discussion area and I was just wondering how people can see someone's email address/Real Name. Thanks, Curin Derwin 01:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to append &action=credits to a page address. elix Omni 01:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I just tried this and was presented with an "uncreated page" screen. Am I doing something wrong? -Curin Derwin 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably. You need the address in the format http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Koda_Kumi (for instance) rather than http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:Koda_Kumi. I hope this helps, <blip>. >:D elix Omni 04:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if my name could be removed from the history on this. I really feel my identity should be my own if I want it to be... Any ideas how to remove it indefinitely? I would also appreciate it if I can find where to propose for a mod to delete my name in your post and this page's history, as well. =( -Curin Derwin 04:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

GWW:AN. You can change your Real Name in preferences, but I don't know if it's retroactive or not. You might be immortalized forever on the pages that you've edited, I'm not sure. elix Omni 04:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is retroactive. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Raine

I disagree with your assessment. Raine was being impartial about the whole thing; I talked with her about it on MSN and the fact that either of us knew Ryuu at all was not an issue. The reason why she didn't ban Ryuu immediately was because his block log was completely empty before now and "first offense means warning" or whatever she said. You'll notice that Zes wasn't banned, either. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Got any more logical fallacies to throw at me? Koda Kumi 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting addicted to Farmtown/Farmville on Facebook is bad.--Neil • 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

More implies a first. Would you be saying the same thing if Auron or Salome or anyone gave a warning instead of banning? No, you wouldn't, and you didn't when no one contested the lack of ban. If you have a problem with the lack of banning, do what I did and bitch at a bunch of people about it - but don't call out one person for a consunsual decision and expect it to work. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I talked to Ryuu for over an hour after the incident and he was pissed that Raine didn't give him special treatment. elix Omni 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Raine was being favorable towards Ryuu in the discussion on the AN. However, one slight miscalculation of judgment is not enough to deem someone unworthy of judging for all of eternity. Like, who am I to label anyone? What is relevant is to base judgment on facts and logic and not on emotions and prejudice. Only time will tell if that is going to happen. Koda Kumi 22:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

How was I favoring anyone? How was my judgment not based on facts? Where did I take an action based on emotion or prejudice? Quotes, please.

If you're going to continue to harp about me, at least do it with substantiated accusations and not this baseless nonsense. — Raine Valen 22:18, 29 Nov 2010 (UTC)

If she were being favorable towards Ryuu and basing her judgment off of emotion and prejudice, she would have claimed he'd done no wrong and possibly banned Zes. Instead she gave him an official warning. Given their (rather close) history, I'd say she was clearly not being favorable towards Ryuu. In fact, I'd say she observed the violation and doled out what punishment she felt necessary. If anything, you could feasibly claim that she was being neutral with regards to the situation (neither supporting Ryuu nor being excessively hard on him). At best, you could claim she turned half a blind eye (or even most of one!) towards the whole thing.

It seems like you're a little pissed off that Raine didn't ban Ryuu for trolling. If you want to claim the punishment she doled out wasn't what was necessary, great, take it up with her and I'll back you up (because honestly the whole situation was handled terribly). Until then, you need to observe the situation yourself and not blame people for the wrong things.

You are perfectly within your rights to label people if you want. That's part of being human. You're not any better than anyone else if you choose not to do so. Likewise, you're not necessarily anyone's equal just because you're both human.

Also, your "argument" is completely ignoring the fact that none of the sysops did anything until he ignored the warning. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no argument. Only some things that need to be kept in close view for the future. I guess my choice of words is poor but hey, everyone has their flaws. Luckily, my forte is not literature but logic. Koda Kumi 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WHAT flaw are you talking about? — Raine Valen 22:32, 29 Nov 2010 (UTC)

If Raine was incapable of being impartial, then it is up to another sysop to step in. At the time, no sysop felt it was necessary. Later, after additional actions, another sysop felt a ban was appropriate. What exactly is the problem here? It is very difficult to call bias on lack of action, because if you are biased, not acting is actually the wisest action to take. Perceived bias can also cause overreaction to prevent a perception of bias. I don't think Raine acted in a particularly biased manner, but if she was biased, her actions were completely appropriate, so I don't really see the grounds for complaint. Reiteration of the earlier statement of calling one person out for collective actions, but I guess I am biased. Misery 00:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop feeding the troll, guys. 83.163.190.111 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sup

What's "the norm"? 83.163.190.111 16:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. And I do not care. The only thing I care about is myself. You are a nobody. You do not even have an identity. That is why I, the face of judgment, the blue-haired rebel, am superior to each and every one of you. I dare to shatter the glass prison of the moral law. Inspiring to improve on the self. Trying to limit categorization and encouraging rationality. By facts and logic. Whatever the norm is, it opposes all of that, and so I oppose the norm. Koda Kumi 18:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Copypasta much? Your posts have no identity. 83.163.190.111 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And includes amusing amounts of hypocrisy and oxymorons. Getting angry when I post here, koda? --Venomoth 21:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the next elections, lol. 83.163.190.111 22:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"None of you has what I, the face of judgment, the blue-haired rebel, have."

Aww come on, you don't know that for sure. Maybe there are a lot of other people on this site that have dyed their hair? 132.229.132.145 10:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am the only one who uses that moniker. It is not something I put value in, but something to remember me by. Koda Kumi 20:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hurr durr I'm the only special person in the world everyone should be like me hurr Tollie00 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Aw yiss.--neshot. 22:33, 12 January 2011.

You are not. I am. Koda Kumi 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cancelled

"Canceled" is the American spelling and "cancelled" is the non-American spelling. --Silver Edge 02:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't look very hard, but does the wiki have any preference of American English or British English? --Riddle 02:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

neither, the usual preference is to leave whatever's there. -Auron 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The preference is American English. GW and its official wiki are both American. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 01:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Been there, didn't do that. No need to edit solely to change colour to color. No one has trouble interpreting either version. G R E E N E R 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So

Glad to see you ditched the semi-carebear hypocritical bullshit attitude 90% of the PvE community seems to suffer from. I'm afraid it's too little, too late though. The PvE-ness has already corrupted your mind to a critical degree. Morphy 13:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to tell me what to do? In the past few months, you have done nothing but pander to the trolls who frequent this site all the time because they have nothing better to do (who can blame them, the game industry has never been this bad!) If you want to guide someone to being less of a nuisance, there are plenty of sheep here who still revere Raine as a goddess; maybe you can do something about them. I am the legend of logic, the blue-haired rebel, and do not need you to lecture me on anything. Koda Kumi 22:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You are adorable. — Raine Valen 23:06, 14 Jan 2011 (UTC)

I used to have this page watchlisted, because I thought you were kind of funny. Now it just hurts to read. Also, you should <3 Raine too, she's hot. -- Tha Reckoning 02:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I like that line, "the legend of logic." Half the things you say seem like things I'd write. I'm not sure if that's quite what you would want to aim for in a serious discussion, though. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussions are a pretty bad way to share knowledge anyway. Morphy 09:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)