The episode where Bob Kelso left was INTENTED to be the season finale, but then they showed the episodes out of order.

I don't have any proof, but it was just a guess.

monkeymoose5000

No you are right, like I said in my original post. It was intended to be episode 9 of 11 episodes this season. NBC liked it so bumped it up to be the finale instead, replacing the episode where Dr. Kelso left. In doing so, however, they broke the continuity of the show.

[QUOTE="mynameisdumb"]

If you bring religion into this, then you were the one who was debating religion. :| And all I did was counter why the Bible isn't a legitimate argument.

http://www.otkenyer.hu/halsall/lgbh-progay1.html
Read that. It makes a great case that the Bible is pro gay Follow the links, explore a bit. Here is an example:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women." Samuel 1:26

And the difference between me criticizing your opinion and you criticizing homosexuality is enormous.

First, you entered this topic and are arguing with people, bringing yourself in to be criticized or argued with. You are criticizing homosexuals in general, an entire clas-s of people. Are you anti black as well?

Second, you make the choice to be anti-gay. They are born homosexual.

Third, you criticize homosexuality in general, which I can all but GUARANTEE has never caused you any harm. By critcizing homosexuality, you are harming their cause and opening yourself up to someone who wants to defend homosexuality (me). I'm merely defending the case of those who you attacked.

Care to counter?

brightshadow525

I do care to counter.

That site has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've seen... They take some of the most normal scriptures and try to work in homosexuality. Also, love back then was much more open and thrown around than we consider it. Love was much more of a common word than we think of it now. If anyone says "I love you" in this day and age, it would start a whole mess of things. It's just the way the words were used.

@ The line you quoted: I love how you didn't indicate whether it was 1st or 2nd Samuel... Obvious example of your knowledge of the bible... This was a time right after Jonathan died in war along with his Father, Saul... Now imagine... Your BEST friend died... Do you care if your speech can have homosexual meanings...?

Where on earth did you get the notion that I am anti-black?!

Again... No proof that they're BORN homosexual.

No, I do not criticize homosexuality. I simply say that I THINK it is wrong, based on what I THINK. I'm just defending my position from people who CRITICIZE my opinion.

You just built my argument for me. Your first point shows that the Bible is outdated. Yes, I agree, the language they use is outdated. Times change, that's why a multi thousand year old book can't dictate the future. The same though ALSO applies to any anti-homosexual verses they use.

Second, it doesn't matter what context he said it in. Sure he doesn't care if his speech didn't have homosexual connotations. Why would he in that case? But he still said it and it still leaves liberal room for interpretation. The fact that it was in a moment of duress doesn't change anything.

I used being anti black as an example. Being anti-homosexual is exactly the same thing as being anti-black, just with a different group of people. Or anti-women, or anything targetting a whole group of people who didn't CHOOSE their fate.

And no proof they are born homosexual? How about the stacks and stacks of evidence by scientists. You will find more information then you ever cared to know by googling it. I guess you can also argue that evolution isn't real, but most people accept that as fact too.

And by entering this argument you opened yourself up to criticism. If you keep it to yourself no one will argue with you.

[QUOTE="mynameisdumb"][QUOTE="PeterPerson"][QUOTE="Thiago26792

we didnt say they were brothers, just that it was brotherly love.

i guess you could argue that but if they were wouldnt god had not like... favored them or whatever?

PeterPerson

That just forwards my point. Why can't God favor them if they were homosexual? Is there a chance that they were judged by God on grounds OTHER than their sexuality? Not to mention the large amount of other passages and arguments included in my link. It really doesn't matter. The Bible is so open to interpretation that you can't establish anything for certain.

[QUOTE="Thiago26792"][QUOTE="mynameisdumb"][QUOTE="brightshadow525"][QUOTE="mynameisdumb"]

See that's where you are absolutely wrong. Read my post, I answered why it's not. The Bible is a multi THOUSAND year old tool Christian fanatics have the benefit of using to judge people who are different than them. Also, as I also pointed out, the Bible has references to homosexuals in a positive connotation.

PeterPerson

Wrong and wrong. You're just debating religion now. This isn't a religion thread. Based on MY MORALS and ideas that I take from the Bible (which I consider valid), I don't think homosexuality is right? And no, you have no idea what the Bible is obviously; stop making assumptions like you are. Show me where the bible has references to homosexuality in a positive connotation. Also... I love how you're critiziing my OPINION, when you're angry about people critizing homosexuals...

If you bring religion into this, then you were the one who was debating religion. :| And all I did was counter why the Bible isn't a legitimate argument.

http://www.otkenyer.hu/halsall/lgbh-progay1.html
Read that. It makes a great case that the Bible is pro gay Follow the links, explore a bit. Here is an example:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women." Samuel 1:26

And the difference between me criticizing your opinion and you criticizing homosexuality is enormous.

First, you entered this topic and are arguing with people, bringing yourself in to be criticized or argued with. You are criticizing homosexuals in general, an entire clas-s of people. Are you anti black as well?

Second, you make the choice to be anti-gay. They are born homosexual.

Third, you criticize homosexuality in general, which I can all but GUARANTEE has never caused you any harm. By critcizing homosexuality, you are harming their cause and opening yourself up to someone who wants to defend homosexuality (me). I'm merely defending the case of those who you attacked.

Care to counter?

Lol, that argument refers to the love between brothers.

hes right that love has no implication of sexualness.

They weren't real brothers. They were EXTREMELY close friends, and you could easily argue that they were more.

[QUOTE="mynameisdumb"][QUOTE="brightshadow525"]

[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"][QUOTE="Thiago26792"]According to the Bible it is. It goes against nature. Besides, these people aren't born gay Thre's no prove of a gay gene.Thiago26792

The Bible is a valid reason for me.... o.O
It is also observed in nature that some animals eat their children...

See that's where you are absolutely wrong. Read my post, I answered why it's not. The Bible is a multi THOUSAND year old tool Christian fanatics have the benefit of using to judge people who are different than them. Also, as I also pointed out, the Bible has references to homosexuals in a positive connotation.

So you suggest that there are millions of Christian fanatics, since they use the Bible? Please show some respect for people that do believe in Christianism. Atheists are a minor percentage of the population, you know. There are many reasons for believing in the Bible.

Not all Christians are anti gay I myself believe in God, I would consider myself non-denominational. I'm not anti-Christian, I'm against people who use ONLY select sections of the Bible as a tool to justify why people different from them are wrong.

[QUOTE="mynameisdumb"]

See that's where you are absolutely wrong. Read my post, I answered why it's not. The Bible is a multi THOUSAND year old tool Christian fanatics have the benefit of using to judge people who are different than them. Also, as I also pointed out, the Bible has references to homosexuals in a positive connotation.

brightshadow525

Wrong and wrong. You're just debating religion now. This isn't a religion thread. Based on MY MORALS and ideas that I take from the Bible (which I consider valid), I don't think homosexuality is right? And no, you have no idea what the Bible is obviously; stop making assumptions like you are. Show me where the bible has references to homosexuality in a positive connotation. Also... I love how you're critiziing my OPINION, when you're angry about people critizing homosexuals...

If you bring religion into this, then you were the one who was debating religion. :| And all I did was counter why the Bible isn't a legitimate argument.

http://www.otkenyer.hu/halsall/lgbh-progay1.html
Read that. It makes a great case that the Bible is pro gay Follow the links, explore a bit. Here is an example:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women." Samuel 1:26

And the difference between me criticizing your opinion and you criticizing homosexuality is enormous.

First, you entered this topic and are arguing with people, bringing yourself in to be criticized or argued with. You are criticizing homosexuals in general, an entire clas-s of people. Are you anti black as well?

Second, you make the choice to be anti-gay. They are born homosexual.

Third, you criticize homosexuality in general, which I can all but GUARANTEE has never caused you any harm. By critcizing homosexuality, you are harming their cause and opening yourself up to someone who wants to defend homosexuality (me). I'm merely defending the case of those who you attacked.

Care to counter?

[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"][QUOTE="Thiago26792"]According to the Bible it is. It goes against nature. Besides, these people aren't born gay Thre's no prove of a gay gene.brightshadow525

The Bible is a valid reason for me.... o.O
It is also observed in nature that some animals eat their children...

See that's where you are absolutely wrong. Read my post, I answered why it's not. The Bible is a multi THOUSAND year old tool Christian fanatics have the benefit of using to judge people who are different than them. Also, as I also pointed out, the Bible has references to homosexuals in a positive connotation.

Left handed people used to be killed for being different. Today we look at that as absolutely absurd. Down the road, in however many years, people will look back at our society and wonder how we could ever be so outlandish and backwards that we treated people differently based on conditions they were born with. I don't want to be remembered like that.

The three main arguments I'm hearing here are that it's a choice, God is against it, and it's unnatural or wrong (though no one has given any real reasons for WHY it's wrong).

First, it's a choice? This is an easy one. Yep, just it's like a choice to be left handed. Sure, you could try and live your whole life using your right hand to do tasks that would be multiple times easier using your left hand. Should you have to? No, and the same applies to homosexuality. You are born left handed the same way you are born homosexual. The science proves it. Anyone arguing this point is simply in denial. Yes, you can CHOOSE to act on those urges, but that still isn't wrong. As with a left handed person, why should you be forced to act against your desires for the benefit of a few culturally backward individuals?

Second, God is against it. If you go back to the Bible there are numerous cases of homosexuality. It's pretty convenient to pick and choose which sections of the Bible to use in your argument isn't it? Not to mention the fact that the Bible should have zero relevance in our society (in the USA). Two of our country's founding concepts are equality and separation of church and state. Even if the Bible and Christianity was right over the thousands of other religions that believe THEY are right, then it still shouldn't be used in our government due to separation of church and state. And any homophobes living in the United States should just be ashamed. I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. Free. Unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit of happiness. That's what our country strives for. We got rid of slavery, we gave women voting rights, and more in an effort to accomplish these goals. Anyone from homosexuals to blacks to women should be free to pursue their happiness in any way they can, so long as it doesn't harm anyone. Women and blacks can, but homosexuals are still pushed under the rug. Trust me, this will change.

Third, it's unnatural or wrong. Is it wrong to masturbate Is it wrong to engage in oral or anal sex? Do you treat someone terribly because they have a foot fetish? Or, if you are mixed up enough to believe those are wrong, then is it wrong to be attracted to a particular hair or skin color? Or wrong to be attracted to a person's lips or eyes? The answer to all of these questions is a solid NO. Is it wrong to be homosexual? NO. These are traits you are born with and none of them cause any harm whatsoever to anyone else.

The bottom line is, anti-homosexuals are a dying breed. People are starting to wise up and realize there is nothing wrong with it. The only people still against it are either trying to put up a macho front to "prove" they aren't gay when they really are, or religious fanatics... scratch that, religous LUNATICS who use select sections of a book THOUSANDS of years old to judge people that are different from themselves.

END TOPIC

Worst Scrubs season finale ever, honestly. Maybe even the worst Scrubs episode ever.

First of all, the concept wasn't great to begin with. The whole middle ages thing was a decent idea at best (fit for a filler episode), but it really didn't tie in that well with the actual show and seemed incredibly out of place in something as important as the season finale.

Second, it wasn't even that funny. I found myself chuckling once or twice of course, but in comparison to other Scrubs episodes this may as well have been a documentary on sand.

Third, it didn't even make sense in the continuity of the show. Dr. Kelso was there (in the hospital and the middle ages segments) even though he quit two episodes ago. The reason? NBC decided that this episode was better (how they came to that conclusion I will never know) then the two following it, so they moved this up to the season finale. It was SUPPOSED to be episode 9 out of 11. So they didn't even keep the Scrubs timeline intact.

Fourth, it didn't wrap up ANY loose ends or ANYTHING. Nothing in this show moved the story or plot of the show in any way whatsoever. At all. It was a filler episode at best, NOT fit for a season finale. The closest thing to moving the storyline was just another strained Elliot-JD "will they or won't they" plot. That could have been enough, except that it didn't add ANYTHING to the JD-Elliot plot, and merely brought it up simply in an attempt to give some meaning to this episode.

Fifth and finally (this ties in with my fourth reason kind of), this may actually be the series finale. You heard me, not just the season finale, the SERIES finale. ABC bought Scrubs from NBC obviously expecting to run it for another season, BUT it's not certain that they actually will. Due to the diminishing quality of Scrubs lately (not just this episode, the whole season) ratings have gone down. Depending on how ABC's marketing teams conduct their polls and surveys and studies and etc., Scrubs may not even come back to end the show. This COULD be the final note that Scrubs, one of my personal favorite shows of all time, is forced to end on.

It seems to me like they were trying to replicate their success with the Scrubs musical episode, which WAS a great episode. Unfortunately, this episode didn't hold a candle to it, due to it's low levels of laughter and inclusion as the season finale (not to mention that it BREAKS the continuity of the entire show).

Done ranting.

What do you think?

Just wondering what everyone thinks. For me, I have to just get Battletoads out of the way and point out how difficult the bike sections were. Now, more obscure games.

Mushihimesama. Just youtube it if you haven't heard of it, watch the final boss battle. You can hardly count that a game.

I Wanna Be The Guy (Not a real video game, made from flash or something, again, just youtube it)

Those two for me just take the cake. I can't think of anything that comes close to them. If you bend the game rules, such as beating rpgs with low levels on purpose or beating fpss with only a weak weapon or your knife (RE haha) then I guess games could be harder, but without artificially changing it I don't see how.

What about you?