passiflora

I don't have any specific dream pets, but I love the fruit/vegetable chias and maraquan pets that look almost like a new animal (Grarrl, Shoyru, Pteri, etc.). I'd make side accounts dedicated specifically to these themes if I had the finances! :laughingsmiley:

Thanks for the warm welcomes. :)

 

 

This is a very well-run forum, kudos to all the staff and other people who make it such a lovely place.

Definitely have to agree with everyone that says maraquan. There are even some species that I normally wouldn't consider adopting, but would snatch up in a second if they were maraquan!

 

 

I also think woodland is pretty cool, and seems to be rather uncommon.

1. Bikiwan

2. Bloopy

3. Cadro

4. Buzzer

5. Bogie

I'm not 100% sure which pets are are considered ugly or unpopular. But I've read somewhere that gnorbus aren't that popular, and I love mine. :)

"Ohhh how cute. It seems no name has got a Bumbluz in its mouth. Have you been feeding it lately?"

 

:woot:

 

 

 

Something has happened! An Earthquake! Quick! Hide under your Desk! (You do have one in your NeoHome, don't you?)

 

First tornados (in the South USA) and now an earthquake, what is going on?????

Woah, I've never seen something like that happen before haha :O

Sorry for quoting old posts... I think there's some interesting discussion here. I was just a little late getting in on the action. ;) I haven't read the entire discussion, so also apologies for brining up points that may have already been addressed.

 

So, if that is your reasoning of how marriage works -- shouldn't couples who don't intend to reproduce or have a money be denied their right to marry -- since their not fulling their original role?

 

I have already shown how the concept of marriage, though it has varied over time, has grown from the social conventions of heterosexual interactions (protection, providing food etc). Tailoring it to homosexual interaction is by far the greatest possible shift you can make away from what it is and has been for ever since it began. Say you have two homosexual cavemen. Both are mighty warriors as survival of the fittest used to dictate. They could each fend for themselves. On top of this no family would be created. There was no reason for them to interact in a way that would give rise to marriage. Even if a heterosexual couple is barren, they are hard wired for a family type set-up where the male would provide and protect. I'm not being sexist, this is how it was. And sure homosexual people want families, but a lot of that is simple observation of social conventions around them.

 

Well I already said I support civil unions, provided they offer the same legal rights. But I don't believe we should change what marriage is on such a fundamental level. It doesn't seem right to. Two people can love one another...they can embrace. And they should even have the same rights! But I don't think it should be called marriage as it is not what marriage has been known to be.

I'm kind of confused because you seem to contradict yourself - you say that we shouldn't change marriage fundamentally, but also acknowledge that it varies over time.

 

Marriage today is almost nothing like it was originally. It was pretty much to ensure paternity or it was done for some sort of gain (money, property, peace/agreements, etc.). Nowadays marriage is largely focused on love, as "paternal" and "political" issues can be resolved in other ways. Marriage is known to be different things to different cultures and is even different within the same culture at different points in time. Allowing gay marriage to be called "marriage" isn't changing it nearly as drastically as you're making it out to be.

 

Where do you stand on polygamy? And I'm not asking this as a farce, I'm really curious. If you accept gay marriage you must also be in favor of polygamy. I will explain to you why.

 

It's been your position, as far as I can see, that marrying someone you love and who loves you is a basic human right. The thing about basic human rights is that they are not subject to being conditional. It is truly possible to deeply love more than one person. And if more than one person loved you back, why can't you have multiple marriages?

If you're going to change what marriage is in our day and age, quality*=quantity. Change is change.

 

Keep in mind that if you reject polygamy, you are guilty of the same "discrimination" shared by people who are anti-gay marriage. It just happens to be discrimination toward a different group. And this is true no matter the strategy you implement to try to rationalize differences between the two.

 

 

*Quality here is defined as type (gender), not a judgement.

I wouldn't be opposed to polygamy, however I am hesitant.

 

To me, polygamy serves the same kind of purpose as "olden day" marriage: for an advantage, not for love. In polygamous polygynous societies, multiple wives is more of a symbol of status or power or had other motivations, and polyandry is exceptionally rare. I feel like it's less realistic to implement, or would fundamentally change the idea of what we currently think of as marriage - much more so than gay marriage. I'm not saying that one culture is necessarily more right or that polygamy couldn't work, but I feel like it's a distinct issue to gay marriage (to a degree).

 

I didn't say anything about rights, I said that gay couples aren't the same as heterosexual couples because of the fact that they're gay. That isn't derogatory or insulting, its the truth.

But your basis for saying that they weren't the same is that they cannot have children. By that definition, infertile heterosexual couples would be more similar to gay couples and not worthy of the term 'marriage'. It's okay to acknowledge differences, but to pull from your example about identifying races not being racism:

It's okay to identify an Asian person as Asian, but they're still a person. It's okay to say 'gay marriage', and identify it as such, but it's still marriage.

Ignorant question here XD As someone who's been around the pet site market for a while, I've heard of Subeta but never really visited the site or anything. So I'm curious, why do you have every right to hate them as a Neopian? Please enlighten me to this bit of drama XD

I just checked it out because I'd never heard of it, and it looks kind of like a rip-off of neopets, but with less stuff. Don't get me wrong, I don't know which has been around longer of if they have any affiliation or anything of the sort, and I kind of like some of the pet artwork there. I think I'll stick with neopets, anyway. ^_^

Hi guys. I'm new but I don't have much to say. I enjoy neopets and I lurk here often to check out news and all the other helpful things that people have to say. Now I have an account to lurk (and post) with. ^_^ That is all.

Hey guys. I've been lurking for a while, but finally ran into a problem that prompted me to register. Haha.

 

 

I know the plot is very old, but I thought it might be nice to actually complete it! However, I can't get past step 13, and I've used every possible wheel/lever combination... twice. (Used the guide on the website, doing it systematically.) I noticed that sometimes the water troughs and buckets change when I change the combination, but I can't figure out if there's any order to it.

 

Is there some other way to figure this out? Or could it not be working due to all the problems neopets has been having lately?

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

This topic has been edited by a member of staff (Neomysterion).

The topic was posted in the wrong area.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this topic.

Per the reason above, this topic has been MOVED from ‘Neopets Help’ to ‘Altador Plot’.

 

 

Edit: Sorry, totally missed that the Altador Plot forum even existed. :* I swear when I searched for related topics, some of them were in Neopets help, but maybe I'm just going crazy. :laughingsmiley: My bad!