Because no one asked me about it. And I haven't played those games in a really long time.

Busy with work and I'm not in the mood to answer questions. If you haven't noticed, my answers have been getting shorter.

I don't think it's specifically an LGBT advocacy. I think it's a general thing. They're saying you can't force someone to be who they're not. It doesn't have to apply specifically to people of the LGBT community.

You don't learn everything in History anyway. You just learn those which are deemed important.

Other courses in school (like the BioChem course) have subjects which require lots of readings and papers and those subjects aren't all their major subjects either.

What? I don't have a blog which states whatever you said. Are you sure you have the right person?

Are they the ONLY presidents we have? Are they the ONLY people in government?

If you think about it, since we all don't have the same values and beliefs, we all discriminate against something. So yes, being against something is discrimination because someone else might believe in whatever it is you're against.

I don't know.

You should never place something as more important as another. It's egotistical and unfair.

Being against something is discrimination. Everyone discriminates.

Not really. Most creatures are social beings, humans included. It's natural to look for companionship. There's nothing wrong with eating alone but most people find it weird because they think that it's probably lonely. You certainly don't have to look for someone to eat with first if you don't want to.

You can be a teacher or a historian. Please, without other people, CS people wouldn't have anything to do. CS people work with data that has been collected by others.

PolSci is not applicable? If there were no PolSci people, we wouldn't have politics or governments.

Philo and Theo people give others something to think about. They can deal with ethics too.

Just because YOU can't see the practicality in them doesn't mean they aren't.

You should never give in to a terrorist's threats. It will make them believe that they have authority over you and that you can be pushed to their will. Compromise, stall, deceive the terrorist. Do what you can to make the terrorist stand down.

I don't think it's fair to generalize though at the same time, it's also unfair to assume that it was what your Theo prof insinuated. If you're not completely sure, don't write it as if you were.

Thinking history is unimportant is naive and ignorant. You need to know history. They say people learn from their mistakes. How can you learn from people's mistakes if you don't even know what they are? If history's not applicable or practical or useful, we'd have laws which could spiral society back to the middle ages.

Also, naming dates from the top of one's head is not a talent is a talent. Can YOU name dates off the top of YOUR head? And how does naming dates off the top of your head show you have nothing better to do with your life? It's like saying someone who can mentally compute something have nothing better to do with their lives. Some people are good at mental computation. Some people are good at remembering dates. That's an innate talent for them.

Does belittling others' talents make you feel good?

I think people just find it weird if someone's alone, whether it's about eating or something else. :)

It just means that your Theo professor is probably close-minded when it comes to his beliefs. Regardless of the stance of a statistic, you still have question them to confirm the validity of the conclusion.

Thanks for your finalizing argument.

If the advantages of scalping is so good as you all keep trying to point out, why then are there people trying to ban it?

Also, the end does not justify the means.