Zafur

Good to see polyglots here, I'm a bit jealous. @Damio: Japanese is actually the only Asian language I like. It just sounds... Cute? For girls who speak it, at least. I used to have a few resources I checked out a lot and was able to make simple sentences on my own but I haven't looked at it in ages. @_x You're lucky you even got lessons. Honestly, I think my school should teach Chinese... The school's whole theme is on China. Greencat: French is a romance language, so I never really liked it too much even though it was never as bad as I thought Spanish was. But I've found some French songs that let me like it a bit more.

Hey guys, I suck at opening posts, but I'll try. This thread is for the discussion of languages...Anything from learning them, your opinion on languages, and showing off your polyglot skills. If you post in another language, I ask that you also translate it into the main language of this forum, which happens to be English. I'm interested in learning some languages not for the culture, per se, but more for the language itself. I kind of get annoyed when some people presume learning languages is all about the culture... I guess it might be the case for most people, but personally, I don't really need to connect their culture to learning their language. I was wondering if there's any linguistics or polyglots here. Would be interesting. I seem to like the Germanic and Slavic languages, and dislike the Romance languages. Languages I'm interested in learning: German - Sounds awesome. <3 Russian - Same as above. Depends who's talking. Other reasons too. ASL - Talking to people who need to use ASL seems interesting. Irish (Gaelige/Irish Gaelic) - This is because I'm part Irish, so I might look at taking it up. Japanese - Yes, this started as an anime thing, but I've actually grown to like the language. Esperanto - Yes, Esperanto, not Spanish. It's basically a man made language designed to be the international second language. This way everyone keeps their main language but can speak to everyone else in the world by learning only one other. Because of this, it was designed to be much simpler than natural languages and can be learned in a fraction of the time. Hope to meet more Esperantists or others who are interested about it. Languages I "have" to learn: Spanish - School course, I would've taken up ASL, but I was kind of "forced" to choose Spanish. I live in a largely Hispanic/Latino neighbourhood, I'm both part Spaniard and Puerto Rican, but I really dislike this language. Wish I could've learned it when young so I could've gotten it over with. Basically just taken it for the "job opportunities". Like someone would need another person who could speak Spanish to work for you when probably at least half your employees can already speak it natively... Seems like ASL would be more useful since it's rare. Final thing is that as always, be civil. You can talk about hating a language as long as it isn't disrespectful.

I was planning on doing this... What about the alternate forms? I know I have a complete set on my Diamond Cartridge that practically takes up all 18 boxes, so with the newer forms, it should be a full 18.

o-o I think this is highly unlikely. As cool as it would be to see realistic Pokémon, the TV series is largely seen as for young children...(And most of them become ashamed to admit to still liking Pokémon around highschool age) With Transformers, the kids that watched it are adults now, so they could appreciate the effort in the CGI and special effects in the revival of a childhood series, along with their own kids enjoying the movie. Then if you're going to make a CGI movie like this, you generally need a serious enough plot to get adults to even consider wanting to watch it if they're not too into Pokémon, and so far, the most serious plots I've seen have centered around Mewtwo. It would probably require a decent amount of "action" as well. It could have the potential to be epic if done right, but at the current stage Pokémon is in, I don't think it's very likely... Then again, Japan DOES like to make anime into live actions series, such as Sailor Moon, so I guess there's some hope.

Yes, but I was wondering if it were possible to make it allow more characters than it already does. Such as putting Korean character support in an English ROM. Thanks for answering, though.

This is an odd question, but would it allow you to enter more characters that are supported by the game? Such as Ĉ, Ĝ, Ĥ, Ĵ, Ŝ, and Ŭ? Don't want it to treat them like Korean characters if I ever get around to editing the text. Also, would it be possible to make those characters show up in the naming screens? When you name your character, rival, Pokémon, etc.

Gay couples creating gay kids? Just like how straight couples always make straight babies? I'm not sure what your point is in bringing up this opinion. So you believe people should only marry if they intend to create more children? That that's the whole point of marriage? Deciding to make kids is something that comes with a deep and serious relationship that marriage isn't necessarily a part of. I can have a deep, serious, and loving relationship that is identical to a married couple's without actually being married. And how will they not be able to raise them in a stable family environment? Besides being an example of gay being okay, what difference is there from straight couples? There can still be straight drunk fathers, spouse abuse, and other things that influence kids negatively from straight relationships. Only difference between these is that not everyone can agree that being gay is immoral (because this opinion stems from your religion, remove the religion, and there is no reason for it to be immoral), and that being a drunk, and abusing people are DEFINITELY negative things. Again, you're assuming marriage was invented by your religion. It wasn't. Your religion should not hold the rules for legal marriages that take place, it's not the owner of marriage. It can have rules on their own ceremonies, but nothing that has to do with legal rights. If they want to religiously unite two people before God or not is their problem, but the Church has no place in law. More like, religion should not have any part in marriage at all. (Your Religion did NOT create marriage. Legal marriages are NOT religious in any way. Therefor, your religion should NOT control legal marriages. Their ceremonies for their own version of marriage, uniting people before God, is their business.) 2/3. Morals are NOT universal. They vary from person to person, as is obviously the case here. To MY morals, gay is fine, to YOURS, gay is sinful. Police are there to uphold the law and make sure no one gets hurt (getting people hurt goes against MOST people's morals), but as gays do not inherently hurt anyone more than anyone else, there should be nothing against them. Gays being bad is your opinion, and your morals, yet they are harmless. Police do not uphold or defend morals, they defend people.

Okay, to add to my post "The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."" Sounds like marriage is protected there. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens... ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Which says that forcing gays to use civil unions instead of legally calling it a marriage could be considered unconstitutional.

This country was pretty much founded on letting everyone have equal rights... Religious freedom, including the right to have a lack of a religion... Even if it wasn't, it's a good thing to let everyone to have equal rights and a chance at marriage. And it's STILL discrimination. Discrimination against race wasn't in the constitution until after the discrimination took place. (What about not discriminating based on gender, (Fourteenth Amendment I think it was?) and right to the pursuit of happiness and all that? I've heard that being in the Bill of Rights a dozen times but I can't seem to find a source for it.) Edit:"How does Gerstmann defend a constitutional right to gay marriage? First, he insists that we think in terms of “fundamental rights” that apply to all. We should focus on rights we all have in common, not rights that apply to specific groups because they have been discriminated against. If gays have a right to marry, it is be because we all have a right to marry that must be protected equally and consistently. That, in the end, is what Gerstmann argues: gays have a right to marry because we all have a right to marry. The Supreme Court has consistently held that marriage is a fundamental right (it was, in fact, the first right identified as such)." Probably makes more sense than my rambling does. I get your point about God, through Jesus, founding the Catholic Church, but that's just one religion. Why should we base laws that deal with people's rights around a religion? And why THAT specific religion? You may believe yours is right, but people practicing others believe theirs are right also, and not all religions are against homosexuality. Currently, religion is separate from the state, the laws... A religion in itself shouldn't be the reason to pass a law. And, there's a difference between a marriage done by a courthouse or whatever [forgive me, I never looked into how marriage actually takes place legally] and the RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. One can fill out the papers and hold their own party without religion being part of it. It'll still be a legal marriage, and be the same except for the priest at the alter... A religious Catholic marriage requires the priest being there. Since I don't want to force religions to go against their own beliefs, I'm not going to force a priest to be there and do his thing... If a priest is willing to carry out a homosexual marriage, as I know some are, then so be it. All I'm basically saying is homosexuals should be able to have a fully-legal-totally-unrelated-to-any-religion-marriage. If the religion doesn't mind doing their services for them, then let them...

You don't want to believe you came from the same place as other primates did?

Seems like more stuffs happened while I was gone... ___ While Jim Crow laws are dealing with a specific race of people, the basic idea is the same. "Separate but equal" is not equal. Forcing a same sex couple to have something other than marriage is discrimination, especially when civil unions do not always give all the benefits of marriage. Marriage itself is not a religious thing. Religion can have no place in a marriage at all. (Especially considering Atheists marry all the time without any religious ceremonies being there. And that marriage was around before the Church.) It is up to the specific Church/Priest/whoever is in control of religious ceremonies for marriage if they want to go through it or not. If they don't want to, fine, there ARE places where the Church lets you have same sex marriages, the couple can go to one of those or just have a marriage without the religious ceremony. I agree that religious groups should not be forced to do ceremonies on anyone. And the whole ex-gay thing... Ever heard of ex-ex-gays? Seriously, the whole ex-gay thing is ridiculous. They go to these orientation camps to try and change their sexuality, sometimes forced to do so by parents against their will... Since sexuality cannot be changed, they either go into denial and pretend to be straight with a possibility of coming to terms with their sexuality and coming out again to become ex-ex-gays, or stay openly gay. Then there ARE those few who get so stressed out about it that they commit suicide because they just can't become straight and are so dissappointed with themselves as mentioned earlier... Reminds me of this one story, let me see if I can find it and check if it has any relevance. ... Also reminds me of the T-Shirt with the saying "I'm just pretending to be gay for all the social benefits it brings". I honestly don't think ANYONE would seriously pretend or "choose" to be gay if it were possible. Even if they were in a place were being gay is as normal as being straight, I see no reason for them to want to change their sexuality from straight to gay. A. There are plenty of people who hate their same sex parent and are straight... Wouldn't hating the same sex parent make you like the opposite sex more if this was true? B. I don't think going to sex ed is required to know if you're straight. Sex ed is basically teaching how sex works, why it's done, and how to keep safe... This just seems kinda silly. Straight people who never go to sex ed. know they're straight, and have known since practically puberty, or before it. (Taking into account third-fifth grade crushes and such.) I don't think seeing "A+B=babies" would make potentionally homosexual people go "Ohhh. this is how I should be." Maybe more like: "What!? I'm supposed to like THEM? Oh yeah, everyone else does...But why don't I have feelings for them yet?...*denialdenial*" C. So you're saying that seeing their father as being a bit feminine or viewing them as a maternal figure makes a male gay? If anything, the death of a maternal figure would cause them to be around their ultra manly father for ultra manly father-son bonding all the time so he can learn to be an ultra manly stereotypical man. Seriously though, all joking aside, the reasons you gave were very... amusing, I guess. I'd say funny, but that sounds insulting, and I'm not aiming for that. You know what I mean?D: I know people who turn up gay that have not gone through ANY of that, and have been pressured to go through their lives as straight. "Be more manly/womanly!" "Wear this! It's manly/ladylike!" "You're not a *insert opposite gender*!" And I don't mean in a constantly annoying way, but anytime that the person would be seeming to act queer, the parent would comment on it and try to correct it, but the person still ended homosexual. Both parents there, clear gender roles of the parents, but still gay. There are also many instances of those events happening and the kids turning up straight. (Just wondering, but what's with people with just mentioning male homosexuality? Lesbians seem like a minority of a minority here.o-o) I agree with the first part, but I kind of doubt a homosexual can feel romantic love for someone of they opposite gender. If they do, then they're bisexual, which greatly helps with pretending to be straight and ignoring "bad" impulses.

I believe homosexuality is probably caused between a combination of genes and nurture. Gambling is kinda different than sexual orientation though. It's a habit, and for all we know, there may be genes that cause people to pick up bad habits easier, since genes DO affect how our mind functions. He was probably half joking and saying that gambling ran in his family. Can you prove homosexuality is by choice? Can you think gay thoughts and fully enjoy them? Right now? Whether or not it's by choice, they deserve the right for their marriage to be recognized by law. They're not asking for religions to recognize it or to be able to hold religious ceremonies, just that they are able to hold a marriage and have it be fully legal. Them having the right to marry isn't damaging anything but possibly themselves if it really is a sin to God. Other than that, it harms no one. The fact that it's "abnormal" is irrelevant. Some humans can't make kids, and there has been homosexuality witnessed in the wild, in nature. As I mentioned before, forcing them to have "civil unions" instead of marriages is synonymous with forcing blacks to use Black Only water fountains, waiting lines, etc. I honestly don't see why not to let them have rights, and only see reasons for it.

Yeah, pretty much what Randomspot said. Cheating damages a relationship and is a moral offense, and homosexuality is just an issue with your religion. Even if it IS sinning, it's not as immoral as cheating and it does not hurt other people or relationships. Edit: I don't think legalizing marriage would directly cause a person to have less partners. If a person is in a serious relationship for marriage, they're gonna stick with the person regardless of whether they're able to.

Except that having homosexual feelings isn't on the same level as cheating, and that homosexuals will not obtain any feelings for the opposite gender, thus causing them to be alone for the rest of their lives if they DO ignore those feelings, or enter into a fake straight relationship without any true meaning.

I am absolutely sure I am not confusing love with lust. Those are two different emotions. You don't choose to be in love with a person, which is why there is the phrase/verb "to fall in love". You cannot force love... I'm not sure why you say "only an emotion" when that is what love is. It's a strong feeling, but it's still an emotion. If anything, saying that you can choose who you love makes it sound... less epic of a thing to experience. Lust is...more physical.

Choose who we love? How do we do that? I thought love was an emotion that is slowly built up, not one that you attach to any person you happen to want to love or think is hot.

Marriage is only defined as that because of the lack of same sex marriage being legal in countries other than Canada and Spain (are there any others? Never checked). A marriage is simply a union between two people [or more, but let's keep this simple] with the promise to live the rest of their lives together and be faithful to their personal beliefs on marriage... Just because a few dictionaries say just one man and one woman doesn't mean that we should use that to define our laws. We're debating on whether same sex marriage should be legal, not if it's a correct term to use according to dictionaries. I don't see homosexuality as a choice anymore than it is a choice to be heterosexual, bisexual, omni/pansexual, or polyamorous [Not polygamous, there's a difference. It's definitely a choice to be polygamous. Polyamorous just means being able to love more than one person at the same time.]. I don't hear of people just waking up one day and deciding to change their sexuality. You claim homosexuality is wrong. Now we have to ask what are your reasonings on it being wrong? Just because a dictionary says it? Is it your religion? (When we know religions shouldn't affect laws in the first place, as I previously explained.) What do sodomites have to do with anything? Straight people can have anal sex, and so can lesbians. It's good you are living up to "love the sinner and hate the sin" though. Edit: I also have to question why you're taking marriage away from the people you apparently don't hate.

Marriage was around before the Catholic Church. Whether or not their marriage is recognized by the Church is the Church's opinion, but the Church should not be able to decide if it recognized by law and the state. It people want to "sin", as you think it is, let them exercise their free will, it is God's gift to us. It's more like "Fine. Keep your beliefs and stay out of the laws.", no offense. Telling gays to get a civil union is like telling a person of colour to go to a Black Only water fountain. Still discrimination. Laws should not be designed around a religion. How would the people following other religions feel? What if it was illegal to eat pork or beef? Wouldn't that be silly when their religions have absolutely nothing to do with you? How do you believe that a person could change their sexual orientation? Could you force yourself into being gay? Can you choose your favourite colours or favourite food? I know I can't force myself to like anything I don't like... And I'd find it horrible to be forced stuck in a relationship where I feel no feelings or attraction for the person. For both the other person and myself. The whole cure for gay thing is... Well, it sounds at least a little better, but... I still don't think that's right. If you want to make a "cure" available to them, then do it, but I don't think you should force them to do anything. It's really just your opinion on the matter, and them being married isn't going to affect your life. With or without the ability to marry, there's still going to be gays.

I'm mostly a lurker, but I'll miss reading your posts also. Hope you do well in college.

I meant fandubs in general, but point taken. I don't think I'd narrate anything I made up myself.

Mine was made rather randomly... It's a shortened form of Zafurra... [Cool z sound, fur, and a rah sound.] I basically started using it when I couldn't think of a better username or RP name... Now I basically just use it for usernames, since I got a new RP name obsession, and the nickname "Zaffy" was given to me by an internet friend, so now it's like naming a character after myself. I think I've spotted my username not being used by me, or very similar variations.

Watching fandubs always made me want to see how much I'd fail at one. Would this go into the Creative Discussion subforum?

It's saying that it's possible they share a common ancestor and not directly from dinosaurs... Like.... WURMPLE Wurmple-> Cascoon or Silcoon> Dustox and Beautifly. Pre-dino Reptilian > Dinosaur or Bird ancestor> Modern lizards and Modern Birds. A ghost is the soul of a dead person. I consider spirits and ghosts different. They get used interchangeably in media a lot, though. Spirits are almost the same, except they were never "alive", in fiction and stuff anyways. Kinda like not differentiating between legless lizards and snakes. Similar, yet different. Also, because of the definition of ghosts as dead peoples' souls, that says that the Holy Spirit is human, when only Jesus is supposed to be. Hey wait. Legless lizards and snakes can be evidence of a common ancestor. Ironic rofl. @Okami: Yeah, I just put the warning since well, people seemed squeamish earlier and wasn't sure how they'd react to bloody animal fighting... Then again, this IS a Pokémon fan site. I've started the anime a while ago, of Wolf's Rain... Got to about episode 7...

"There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, reptilian "thecodonts," which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs. The lung structure and physiology of crocodiles, in fact, is much more similar to dinosaurs than it is to birds. "We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later."" So evidence has shown that they did not evolve from theropods but they still think there's a common ancestor. I was not aware of the fact that fossils of birds were found before the period of dinosaurs. I don't think I would've brought it up if I had. If there wasn't I would bring up that it's possible that the lungs evolved and such during transition, but it seems pointless with fossil evidence indicating otherwise. This is the type of evidence most people have been asking for, nice one, Pokemonfan. For the comic though, Scientific evolution isn't the same as the evolution in Pokémon. :wink: (Ignoring the fact that domesticated pet cats are well... domesticated from wild cats lol.) Someone needs to explain the difference to that kid lol. I just found it again and practically face palmed at the irony and had to post it here. The mystery of the Holy Trinity isn't that hard for me to understand... Not saying I understand it fully, as it IS a mystery, but some recent events had made it easier for me to understand things like that. Possible that God the Father has a sort of one sided link with Jesus and controls the information that passes through them, if Jesus really doesn't know what God knows. Slightly off topic, but does anyone else besides me get annoyed at saying "Holy Ghost"? The Holy Spirit isn't the soul of a dead guy that's stuck on Earth.O-o

Hmm. Some comedy relief for the time being. http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k138/Clayton_n/OtakuC_004_PSA.jpg Edit: Some minor blood. Just thought I'd warn ya if you have people looking over your shoulders.