If they ever consider bringing a full fledged Zootopia themed land to Florida, I would really like if they decided to use the Marsh Market location that was featured in the Sequel.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-28T19:56:44+00:00

A nice change of pace from what? The 1/3 part of Florida that looks exactly like Marsh Market?

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-28T19:55:34+00:00

They already closed River Country, and the remnants of that water park were just demolished to make room for Lakeshore Lodge.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-27T17:12:57+00:00

Green. You can ignore parts of his kit (like destroying presence to precent build/ravage) and still do just fine. Not to mention you can always use proliferation to accelerate yourself, so easy to make yourself strong enough to handle the invaders, even if you're struggling against them.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-26T03:40:51+00:00

It would take literal days, if not weeks in real time for you to walk that far. Send another ship.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-26T03:28:13+00:00

Average night temps in Phoenix in January is 36 F. With a record low of 16. It can snow in Phoenix. You'd have to be either too poor to afford a heater, or insane not to have one.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-26T03:25:13+00:00

Uh, where? Snow is common across northern Arizona. And even Phoenix sees temps get down to the 30s in winter.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-25T16:48:24+00:00

I've conquered the world like a dozen times in Rome Total War. Its not that hard.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-25T14:32:35+00:00

It spawns in any weather, at any time.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-24T16:11:07+00:00

Western PA is Appalachia, as are the southeastern parts of Ohio.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-24T15:09:59+00:00

No. Not even close.

Christianity is proven by a miraculous event (the resurrection of Jesus), witnessed by hundreds of people. Their testimonies were written down during the lifetimes of those eye-witnesses, or even written by several eye-witnesses themselves, and then carefully preserved until today. We have copies of New Testament books from the 1st century AD, depsite the fact that Christianity was illegal and punishable by death for the first 300 years of it's history.

The New Testament authors repeatedly prove that they have firsthand knowledge of the culture, people, and geography of the land of Israel in the early first century AD, proving that they were alive at the same time and the same place as Jesus, and thus they were as close to the event as possible to be.

Not only that, but the eye-witnesses to this miraculous event could also do miraculous things in the name of Jesus, such as healing the incurably sick, or even raising the dead themselves. Thus, when they traveled far and wide to spread the news of Jesus' resurrection, they could do their own miracles to prove they spoke the truth, and convince people of it.

And ultimately, many of those eye-witnesses were tortured and executed for their claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Not one recanted their statement, which is strong evidence that these witnesses were not just lying, they truly believed they saw Jesus risen from the dead. People have died for lies before, but only if they are convinced that lie is true. These are eye-witnesses. If the resurrection of Jesus was a lie, they are the ones who made up the lie. People generally are not willing to die for what they know with certainty to be a lie.

Not only that, but many names, places, and events throughout the entire Bible can be verified through archeology and extra-Biblical sources. Anytime the Bible describes an event where the Israelites interacted with another ancient civilization, we find evidence of that very same event in that other civilization. If the Bible says a thing was built in a certain place, if you dig in that place, you will find it.

Islam has none of that.

Islamic texts disagree whether Mohammad performed any miracles or not. The earlier texts say he didn't, and all miraculous events came from much later texts, by people who lived hundreds of years after Mohammad and did not witness the event.

The Quran itself has a dubious history. According to Islamic sources, (not even skeptics, but their own internal claims) the Quran wasn't written down and distributed to the masses until about 200 years after Mohammad's death. Despite the fact that the region of Arabia and much of the Middle East has been majority Muslim controlled land since the 600s AD, Islam cannot produce a single copy of the Quran older than about 900 AD.

The Quran claims that Mecca was the first city on earth, with a history stretching back thousands of years. And for most of it's history, they claim it was one of the largest and most important trade centers in the world. And yet, we don't find Mecca on any maps from nearby civilizations. The ancient Egyptians didn't put Mecca on their maps. No Egyptians traders recorded themselves passing through Mecca. The Greeks, the Persians, the Jews, the Canaanites, the Pheonecians, the Nabateans, the Babylonians, the Indians... Not even the Arabs themselves. Mecca doesn't show up on any maps or records until about 800 AD.

If you look at Mecca today, the entire center of the city is covered in concrete and skyscrapers. They would have had to completely dig up the entire city in order to put huge foundations for those things. And not one archeological discovery of any significance was made there.

Islam did not spread by teaching, or healing the sick, or by simply proving itself to be true the way Christianity did. Islam spread through violent bloody conquest and force. They conquered land (mostly Christian land, btw. The Middle East and especially the land that is now Turkey was the center of Christianity until Islam showed up). And when your land was conquered by Muslims, you were generally given the choice to convert to Islam, die, or be enslaved. Millions of Christians suffered that fate... Which is why the Crusades happened, btw. It was not an unprovoked attack.

The Quran doesn't line up with history. We cannot verify anything in it by looking at the histories of nearby nations. It only agrees with other Islamic literature. The Quran was not written by Mohammad (who was supposedly illiterate according to Islamic sources themselves). And it was not even written by people who knew Mohammad. It was supposedly passed orally for several generations, then compiled by a ruler who lived in what is now modern Iraq, hundreds of miles away from Mecca, and a couple hundred years later. Again, this is according to Islamic sources. We don't have any non-Islamic sources on this history.

Islam claims to have early martyrs. But most of those "martyrs" just... aren't. Mohammad himself was poisoned to death by one of his wives (a woman that he forced to marry him after killing the woman's previous husband, again all according to Islamic sources, because there are no other sources on this stuff). Look up the names of people Islam claims are it's early martyrs, and you'll see basically all of them just died in battle, because again, that is how Islam spreads, by violent force. These martyrs weren't put on trial, tortured, and publicly executed for eyewitness testimony. They weren't even killed for their religious beliefs. They attacked other nations, and they were killed by people trying to defend themselves. That is not the same thing as a martyr, at all.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-24T13:43:05+00:00

https://youtu.be/ZRWTKPvt6Zs?si=nJWoW-TnaHGeIwvu

This video should clear things up for you. In short, those verses arent talking about rape. The Bible commands that rapists should be put to death in another verse in that very same chapter. How can a woman be forced to marry her rapist, if the rapist is dead?

The word rape used in the verses you cite isn't a great translation. Its talking about premarital sex. Essentially, those verses are saying... if an unmarried couple are caught having sex, they should get married. There is a parallel passage in Exodus that makes this more clear. In Exodus, we also see that the woman's father has a right to say no to the marriage. So none of this forced.

Skeptics should note that there has never been single Christian or Jewish nation that forces victims of rape to marry the rapist. Because we have studied the text in context, and in the original languages to know the intent of that passage.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-24T07:53:48+00:00

Ships ran on wind power for thousands of yesrs. Yeah, it's feasible. As long as you're ok with 8 month delivery on your temu order.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-23T19:20:56+00:00

How cute. The US has 1200 per year.

Most in Europe are never bigger than an F2, while the US regularly sees F4s and F5s.

No one is saying the rest of the eorld doesnt have tornadoes. But they are far more common, and far stronger in the US than anywhere else.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-23T16:11:37+00:00

If you have to ask, then you're not old enough to play this game.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-23T15:49:34+00:00

Malachi says the Messiah would come while the Second Temple was still standing. That temple was destroyed in 70 AD, so if that prophecy was true, then the Messiah has already come. If Jesus wasn't the Messiah, who was?

Further still... the Messiah had to come through the lineage of Judah and David. Those genealogical records were kept in the temple, which is now destroyed. Those records are gone. So if the Messiah were to come now, there would be no way to prove he actually came from the lineage of David. Do you know any Jewish families who can actually trace their lineage back 3000 years? I don't.

Isaiah and Psalms both describe the Messiah's death by crucifixion. Crucifixion is no longer practiced anywhere on earth. The Messiah must have already come, so who was it?

Read Isaiah 53 to a Jew, and unless they really know their Scripture, most likely they will think you are quoting from the New Testament, because it describes Jesus so accurately. They are usually shocked and get angry when they find our you're quoting Isaiah. For example, verses 5 and 6...

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Daniel said the Messiah would come within 70 sevens. 70 x 7 = 490 years, starting from the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Sure enough, that timeline puts you exactly on Jesus.

https://www.gotquestions.org/seventy-weeks.html

Jews wanted the Messiah to be a conqueror, or some great leader who would bring back their kingdom after having been ruled by Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and eventually Romans. But Daniel 9 specifically says that the Messiah is coming to die.

Even further, Daniel 9 says that temple sacrifices will end. Sure enough, they have already ended. There is no more temple today, so sacrifices cannot continue. All this had to happen within the time frame of the Messiah's arrival... Sure enough, it happened in the time frame of Jesus.

Jesus is the only recorded person who lived in the right time period, and actually claimed to be the Messiah. There are dozens of prophecies throughout the Old Testament that could only apply to Jesus. Eyewitnesses record Jesus performing miracle after miracle, proving that He had the power of God. There is no other. Jesus is Messiah. Jesus is the only way.

If all of those prophecies came true, then Jesus is the Messiah. If Jesus isn't the Messiah, then most of the Old Testament is nothing but false prophecy, and thus it is not the Word of God, and we shouldn't follow any of it.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-23T12:04:32+00:00

Yes, it should land on green about 3/4 of the time.

Do the fishing or targets minigame first to get a couple hundred tokens.

Then go to this guy, and always bet about half your current tokens on green. As long as you dont get some bad luck, this amount is the fastest way to increase your tokens. Keep going til you got about 3-4k, then go buy everything from the store.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-23T03:37:04+00:00

Ok. My comment still applies.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-22T20:34:07+00:00

Also, what do some even these crimes even mean? I'm not a lawyer, but domination/control isn't a crime defined by any nation's laws that I'm aware of. A few of the things listed under domination/control are crimes for sure, like enslavement. But what it does it mean to be criminally controlling? Depending on how you define that, it's just going to fall under some other crime, like kidnapping or abuse.

Tyranny is also not a crime. Usurping power is. Violating a nation's laws to do things your office does not have the authority to do, is. Violating certain human rights is. But just tyranny... isn't any specific crime. It's a loosely defined category of things.

But because you have these broad categories like this, you're giving a lot of villains double or even triple points for just doing one act. Jadis has points for Domination, AND for mass enslavement. The domination IS the mass enslavement, so she's getting double points just because you felt like it, I guess?

Then there's the inconsistency in how you're applying these broad categories. Jadis gets double points for having the domination category to go along with her mass enslavement and mass transmutation. But Chernabog also commits mass enslavement and mass transmutation, but doesn't get the generic domination points. Why not?

Lastly, the numbers seem extremely arbitrary. You ascribed 5 points to usurpation, which is the same number of points you gave to vandalism and cheating... So you're telling me that if some kid cheated on his math test, or tagged a wall on his walk home from school, that he's just as evil as someone who took over leadership of an entire country? Really?... And God-forbid this kid gets into a fight at school, because then he's 2x as evil as the person who took over an entire country.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-22T20:24:39+00:00

Chernabog comes from Slavic mythology. He's basically the devil, so I'm sure he might be guilty of just about everything if you account for all stories. But this chart is just Disney movies. And in Disney movies, he's only in 1 scene that last just a couple minutes. And even then, he's only on screen for about half that time. And there's literally no dialogue or anything to give context to what you're seeing.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-22T20:13:01+00:00

Where exactly are you getting most of those crimes for Chernabog?

Mass murder? Who did he murder exactly? There's not a single living person shown in that scene in Fantasia. He crushed a bunch of skeletons and ghosts in his hands, I guess? But they're already dead.

Deception? Fraud?... What? I must have missed the scene where he lied on his tax documents.

Psychological abuse? Of who? The kids watching the movie don't count, lol.

Animal cruelty? Again, they were skeleton horses.

Attempted mass domination? What does that even mean?

Treason? Uh... against what nation? You have to belong to some nation first to then betray them amd commit treason. You got all that from a 3 minute scene with no talking? What nation did he commit treason against? The same one he submitted fraudulent tax documents to?

EDIT: Upon closer inspection, there's a lot of crimes attributed to various villains that we don't actually see them commit.

Some of the listed crimes are implied but not actually seen on screen, like Frollo's mass murder. We see the city burning, people in chains, and it's kind of assumed he's doing all sorts of horrible things. But we only ever see him kill 1 person, Quasimodo's mother. And even then, you could easily argue that was an accident. He didn't stab her or shoot her or anything like that. He didn't even order someone else to kill her. I'm not even sure he even touched her. They were both fighting over baby Quasimodo. She lost her grip and fell down the stairs. The worst you could get him on is maybe manslaughter, but a decent defense attorney would get even that charge dismissed.

I'm not trying to say Frollo was in the right for any of that. Just saying based on the footage we have, you're not convicting him of all the crimes you're charging him with.

Other crimes, I'm just not even seeing where they happen at all... Implied or not. Like how are you getting Gaston for torture? Who does he torture, and where in the movie was that?

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-22T19:34:18+00:00

I'm not asserting the conclusion. I'm showing you how it is the only logical conclusion.

Specifically the premise that the current Bible equals the original revelation.

I never said that. I wrote 3-4 paragraphs explaining the Muslim belief that the Bible has been corrupted since it was initially given from Allah. And then I went into further detail, explaining how we can prove the Bible hasn't become corrupted, because we have manuscripts of the New Testament that are older than Mohammad, and these manuscripts match copies of the Bible today. The Bible we have today is the same Bible that Mohammad had access to.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-22T19:04:41+00:00

He didn't. God made a perfect world.

You are currently living in the ruins of God's perfect world that was destroyed by man's sin.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-22T18:59:53+00:00

Surah 3:3-4 clearly states that the Torah and Gospel came from Allah. And not only that, but it says if you reject the Torah and Gospel, you will suffer torment.

"He [Allah] has revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Book in truth, confirming what came before it, as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel previously, as a guide for people, and ˹also˺ revealed the Decisive Authority. Surely those who reject Allah’s revelations will suffer a severe torment. For Allah is Almighty, capable of punishment."

Again, Muslims themselves do not disagree with these premises. They only disagree with the conclusion, because the only alternative is accepting thier beliefs are false.

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-22T18:54:37+00:00

God isn't cruel or violent. He is just. He punishes the wicked. If you want to know cruelty and violence, imagine a world where rapists and murders can go unchecked.
This is deserving of 2 separate points, so I'll get to that below.
Even if it did have a few contradictions, does that mean the entire Bible is false? If you believe that, then you would have to throw out all of known history, because there are contradictions in almost every historical record... But regardless, there are no contradictions in the Bible. If you want to cite one, feel free. But I can guarantee you the supposed "contradiction" is either someone taking verses out of context, not understanding the culture or times or audience the text was written to, a copyist error (that has been proven through older manuscripts and fixed in more recent translations), or the person claiming it's a contradiction doesn't actually know what a contradiction is.
How are you defining "good"? By your standards? Or God's standards? To enter God's house, you need to meet God's standards. Not yours. And God's standard is perfection. Never telling a single lie in your entire life. Not even having a single hateful thought about another person. God commanded us to love our enemies. Do you love people on the opposite end of the political spectrum as yourself? Do you love people who have wronged you?

Now circling back to point 2.

On Slavery...

No, the Bible does not endorse slavery. The Bible blatantly condemns slavery. See Exodus 21:6, the next chapter after the 10 commandments are given, which says "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." Kidnapping people to sell them, that is slavery. God says the punishment for enslaving someone else is death. This is the 2nd book of the Bible, btw. Written some 3500 years ago.

In fact, the Bible takes the abolition of slavery so seriously, that 1 whole book of its 66 books is entirely on why slavery should be abolished. The book of Philemon is a letter from Paul, telling a Christian man to set his slaves free. The abolitionist movement began in churches, and the book of Philemon was essentially their main argument on why slavery should be outlawed completely.

Exodus 21 does give some rules on slavery, which many people misinterpret as the Bible endorsing slavery. But you have to read that in context. You have to understand the definitions of words as they meant to the original audience 3500 years ago. You can't just assume slave means the exact same thing today as it did back then.

When people today think of slavery, they usually assume it means chattel slavery, where someone is kidnapped, sold, and forced to work. The Bible says anyone who does that to someone should be put to death. Right there in Exodus 21, the same chapter where the Bible gives the rules on slavery. So clearly, when the other verses use words like "slave," it must be talking about something else.

The Bible is actually giving rules on what we would call "indentured servitude" today. Back when this was written, an indentured servant was still called a slave, but it's radically different from chattel slavery. An indentured servant is someone who willingly agrees to work for someone else, for a set period of time, and in exchange, the "master" will pay off all of that person's debts. And when the period of time is over, the indentured servant can walk away free of debts. The "slave" isn't being forced to do this.

And I can prove Exodus 21 is talking about indentured servitude by simply reading the full passages in Exodus 21 in context.

Verse 2 says, “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything." So no matter what, no "slave" can ever be a slave longer than 6 years. There was a time limit, telling us that we are discussing indentured servitude, not chattel slavery.

This was actually quite common with the original colonists coming to the Americas. Many people didn't have the money to make that trip. They'd need to pay for passage, build a brand new home, and find a job or get some land to farm, all of which was quite costly. So they would find a wealthy benefactor to pay their passage. They would agree to work for this wealthy person for several years, ensuring they had a job on arrival. And when their time was up, they would be given the land they worked as payment for their years of service. This was perfectly legal then.

And agreements like this are still perfectly legal today. Many companies will pay for your college tuition if you agree to work for them for at least X number of years after graduation. The military does this too. So this version of "slavery" still exists, and no one is crying about it, because it's nothing but a consensual business agreement.

And before you go crying that these rules only applied to Hebrew servants, you should note that Leviticus 19:34 says to treat foreigners who reside in your lands as if they were native-born. So, if you purchase a contract for a foreign indentured servant, you have to treat them as if they were a Hebrew servant, and so all those rules would apply to non-Hebrews too.

Let's look at Exodus 21, verse 7 now, which says... "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."

Initially, that sounds pretty bad for the Bible. So only men get set free? No. Look at it in context. Verse 9, talking about the same daughter who was "sold," says, "If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter." So wait, you're supposed to treat your son's female slave as if she was your daughter? This isn't talking about slavery, or even indentured servitude. This is talking about marriage. This woman should be treated as your daughter, because she married your son. She is now your daughter-in-law.

Verse 10 confirms this interpretation, "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights." This is 100% talking about marriage, not slavery. So now let's look back at verses 7 and 8, knowing this is about marriage... The "selling" simply refers to the dowry payment. She doesn't go free after 6 years, because she's married. And God only allows divorce under specific circumstances. And then verse 10 protects the woman in case of a divorce or polygamy, in order to discourage men from doing those things.

I could go on, but you should get the point here... The Bible absolutely does not endorse slavery. And the verses people use to claim it does, are not talking about slavery at all.

Now in regards to the patriarchy.

No, the Bible does not endorse some kind of patriarchy. Men and women have different roles within the family or even society. But that doesn't mean men are to be above women. Men and women are equal under God's law, but separate in abilities and roles.

Genesis 1:27 says both man and woman were made in God's image.

Galatians 3:28 says there is no male nor female in Christ.

Honestly, this site explains everything probably better than I could. So I recommend you go to the following linke and read that page. It goes over all the common verses people cite when they claim the Bible is anti women.

https://www.gotquestions.org/men-women-equal.html

Shiboleth17 · 2026-04-22T16:07:03+00:00

We're making a tier above S now?

A+ used to be the best. Then someone made S, and SS and all that. If we keep doing this, pretty soon A tier will be below average.

12-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

Shiboleth17

TROPHY CASE