# Things you believe that would appall others?



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 16, 2011)

Do you have anything that you believe that would upset other people? I will give examples.

I believe that it is selfish to cry at a funeral because you are crying that YOU don't get to spend any more time with the person, not because they are dead and don't get to enjoy life anymore.
I believe that parents and other elders don't deserve respect just because they are parents and elders. They have to earn it like everyone else.
I believe that religion is just another mental "handicap" for those who fear death, the unknown, and for those who want to lean back and not consider that THEY are responsible for their actions.
I believe that everything is voluntary except illness, instinct, bodily processes, and death. Not a lot of people realize how much control a human has over his or her own mind and body, such as choosing not to be in pain even though you broke a limb or your leg got cut off.
I also believe that mental "illness" does not exist. Some people are just wired differently and do not fit in to the molds of society. Weird belief for a psychologist, huh?
And I don't expect people to criticize others for their beliefs here. You may question, but you also must be civil. I don't want sermons here. This is a place for people to put their beliefs that might otherwise seem blasphemous to those in the everyday world and for those with more closed-minded beliefs to find things to ponder on.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 16, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> I also believe that mental "illness" does not exist. Some people are just wired differently and do not fit in to the molds of society. Weird belief for a psychologist, huh?




cya


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 16, 2011)

-I used to believe men that were repeatedly hit by women had the right to hit them back, but nowadays I go for reporting everything to the authorities.
-I believe... yeah, I really can't think of anything now.


----------



## Recel (Nov 16, 2011)

I belive that this thread wont end well. Because writeing that you dont want people to jump on others beliefs wont actualy make them do so. 
And writeing this might make you upset too, so it fits well! :V


----------



## General-jwj (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe that the furry fandom can still redeem its public image. :V


----------



## Xeno (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe there is no god.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 16, 2011)

Seeing scat as a fetish for furries always upsets me visually and psychologically.
I believe these appall some others:
-A cute animal dying in a movie upsets some people
-Seeing someone close to you going through so much pain.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 16, 2011)

Dare I?
-Natural rights don't really exist (?)
-I have no special place in my 'heart' for humans of subnormal intelligence living off of the system in a slobbery nirvana.
-Affirmative action is contrary to the concept of equal opportunity.
-Freedom of religion isn't 'freedom' at all.
-Reality is objective- our perception thereof is subjective.
-A 'sex change' operation in a patient with normally functioning reproductive organs is very expensive genital mutilation.
-Religion and other belief systems are a* choice, *so it is acceptable to judge each other on this basis (thought not the ONLY criterion).
-Man created 'God' in his own likeness.
-The belief that there is a fundamental difference between humans and all other animals is* the *primary cause of what we call 'animal abuse', and its roots lie in our own 'animalistic' tendencies.
-Science is only as good as human understanding. Obviously there are going to be oversights.
-The Jews thought themselves to be a specially-entitled 'Master Race' millennia before the Nazis existed.
-A military career is only a service to one's country if it actually _benefits_ one's country in the long run.
-NO truth is self-evident.
BONUS: This thread can't remain civil for that long!


----------



## Conker (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe that God is a dick, but I think I like him better that way :3

I believe that AvP2 is one of the best first person shooters ever, or at least tied with others.

I believe that things are just as wrong as they seem.


----------



## israfur (Nov 16, 2011)

I don't think it's okay to tell your kids that there is such thing as santa.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe smoking should be banned just like drugs, it's annoying, damn annoying.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe this thread is going erode what little faith in humanity I have left and drive me towards a promising career in weapons development.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 16, 2011)

everything I believe


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe reggaeton, rap, techno, dubstep, hip-hop and such aren't "real music".


----------



## shteev (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe I can fly death will lead you to a personal Nirvana where you and your soul mate will spend the rest of forever. 
That is, if you made the most of your life.
But that's just me.

Also, contrary to a certain individual above me, I believe that Techno, House and all subgenres of electronic music are, in fact, real music :V


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 16, 2011)

I'm actually pretty PC. 

Well, I guess I'm also an atheist and a queer. That's a big deal in some places.


----------



## Deo (Nov 16, 2011)

fMRI shows brain waves and reactions in people who are in a deep vegetative state. I believe it is intensely cruel to allow these people to live. 
See : I have no mouth and I must scream. These people are trapped in their bodies, unable to respond, unable to move, living life with absolutely no dignity, but they are still possibly _aware_ of every torturous dark second slowly ticking past trapped in the prison of their own flesh? I cannot fathom a more horrific fate than that.

I believe we should euthanize them.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 16, 2011)

I agree with Deo on this one actually.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Nov 16, 2011)

Spoiled due to degree of offensiveness. Not trolling on any of these.


Spoiler: beliefs



- Human life has little to no value.
- Abortion is the only guarantee of a good future.
-  Suicide is a great way to get rid of useless people who are too fucking  stupid to fix their own problems, and should be encouraged rather than  prevented.
- "Macfags" are lesser people because their inability to be as logical as non-Macfags.
- Hip Hop/Rap is the only real music that exists today.
- The only immoral sexual preferences are bestiality and pedophilia. Everything else is okay.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 16, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> I also believe that mental "illness" does not exist. Some people are just wired differently...



People who are wired differently? Yeah I think there's a term for that.

Oh wait


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 16, 2011)

Leafblower29 said:


> Spoiled due to degree of offensiveness. Not trolling on any of these.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: beliefs
> ...



mfw


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe abortion should be legal in a few cases (rape of an underage girl whose body won't stand childbirth, danger of the mother's life, certainty the baby will be born with severe malformations... but I'm still a bit on the fence about the topic, I mean, there are cases in which the mother can give her baby to childwelfare... right?)... yeah, I'm more on the line of the legalization of abortion and studying every case in which it is requested and see if it's a valid choice and the only solution.


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Nov 16, 2011)

I don't like this thread idea. I feel that some things are better kept to oneself, and beliefs like this are one of those things. I'm not saying it's wrong to have them, just that there could be drama stemming from a belief that, as the title says, appeals people and the appalled people get very upset about it and address it in an inappropriate way.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 16, 2011)

Deo said:


> fMRI shows brain waves and reactions in people who are in a deep vegetative state. I believe it is intensely cruel to allow these people to live.
> See : I have no mouth and I must scream. These people are trapped in their bodies, unable to respond, unable to move, living life with absolutely no dignity, but they are still possibly _aware_ of every torturous dark second slowly ticking past trapped in the prison of their own flesh? I cannot fathom a more horrific fate than that.
> 
> I believe we should euthanize them.



^^^I believe in human testing, and I believe more people should volunteer to be experimented on while in a persistent vegetative state. 

I believe there is no inherent value to reality, but we add value to it for fear we will lose ourselves
I believe there is no inherent value to anything, but it's all a survival and social construct
I believe in Harvey Dent

I believe the SETI program is either a waste of time or s grave mistake. Either we will find nothing, or those that respond will be more technologically advanced than us.
I do believe in aliens, but I believe all our concepts of encounters and our idea of aliens is simply the same human flaw that created dragons, changelings, and other mythic things.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 16, 2011)

I have no solid claims to believe that the exploration of the outer space is useless (not like it hasn't brought any benefits) but I still think all that money shouldn't go into something with no apparent consequences of relevance... then again, it'd probably go into something just as seemingly irrelevant.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 16, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I do believe in aliens, but I believe all our concepts of encounters and our idea of aliens is simply the same human flaw that created dragons, changelings, and other mythic things.



I personally believe that if we ever go to another planet that has aliens, it'd be like going into a prehistoric world but one very different to the one we had here.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 16, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> I have no solid claims to believe that the exploration of the outer space is useless (not like it hasn't brought any benefits) but I still think all that money shouldn't go into something with no apparent consequences of relevance... then again, it'd probably go into something just as seemingly irrelevant.





Gibby said:


> I personally believe that if we ever go to another planet that has aliens, it'd be like going into a prehistoric world but one very different to the one we had here.


To clarify, I think we should try to explore space and possibly colonize. I think the search for intelligent life is a bad idea. Stephen Hawking is better at explaining than I am, but the reason we are looking outward is we have exhausted our resources. In turn, any search for intelligent life searches for life with a space program. Chances are they will also have exhausted their planet. So, think colonists.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 16, 2011)

Fay V said:


> To clarify, I think we should try to explore space and possibly colonize ...



So it's more or less like ensuring the survival of human race on a long term?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe humans, being capable of it, have no reason not to push the boundaries of our physical limitations by any means at our disposal in order to enhance the race and push forward in our exploration of the universe.  In effect, I believe that because we can, we _should_ play God, and with great abandon.  But in an intelligent manner, of course, so we don't destroy ourselves.



			
				Fay V said:
			
		

> I believe the SETI program is either a waste of time or s grave mistake.


I might point you in the direction of Seth Shostak's book, _Confessions of an Alien Hunter_, if you're interested.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 16, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> So it's more or less like ensuring the survival of human race on a long term?



yup pretty much. the earth will only last so long.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe in god and doing good deeds


----------



## Traven V (Nov 16, 2011)

- i believe that anything is possible
- I believe nothing is as it seems

The universe works on a math equation
that never even ever really even ends in the end
Infinity spirals out creation 
~ Modest Mouse 
hehe ^^

I dunno belief what a strange thing, what one believes becomes one in a way. I take a step back, and ask myself is this what I what to believe, what I've found to believe (personal life experience) or what I'm programmed to believe :/


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 16, 2011)

Fay V said:


> To clarify, I think we should try to explore space and possibly colonize. I think the search for intelligent life is a bad idea. Stephen Hawking is better at explaining than I am, but the reason we are looking outward is we have exhausted our resources. In turn, any search for intelligent life searches for life with a space program. Chances are they will also have exhausted their planet. So, think colonists.


Stephen Hawking explains it, I believe, with a comparison to how human cultures encounter each other. Generally, when a more technologically advanced human society finds a less-advanced one, things don't turn out so good for the less-advanced society. If alien life is able to locate and contact us in the vastness of space, they are quite a bit more advanced than we are . . .

I don't really know that I agree with that idea, though. Usually violence between human cultures occurs because one culture has something the other wants--land, gold, slave labor, whatever. What do we have that a highly advanced alien society would want? There's nothing to say that our planet would even been inhabitable by them, and most of the resources Earth has to offer would be much more easily gathered elsewhere in the galaxy. Unless they're just crazy imperialistic, I don't know what purpose an advanced alien society would have in destroying or oppressing us. Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I think it's likely that they would want to contact us for the same reason we would want to contact them: Plain curiosity.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Nov 16, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> I believe humans, being capable of it, have no reason not to push the boundaries of our physical limitations by any means at our disposal in order to enhance the race and push forward in our exploration of the universe.  In effect, I believe that because we can, we _should_ play God, and with great abandon.  But in an intelligent manner, of course, so we don't destroy ourselves.



Is that even possible? Or do you perscribe to the "We'll eventually mature" dogma?

And who's to say that we're not already Gods? We create. We destroy. We make life. We take life. Why not go further?



> The universe works on a math equation
> that never even ever really even ends in the end
> Infinity spirals out creation



_This is the song that doesn't end...Yes it goes on and on my friends._


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 16, 2011)

<Democratic socialist, but in cases of life and death and extreme circumstances it shouldn't be left up to politicians to vote on cause they'll just fuck it up.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe that severely mentally retarded human beings would probably be better off dead, euthanize 'em


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 16, 2011)

Tycho said:


> I believe that severely mentally retarded human beings would probably be better off dead, euthanize 'em


We already do that in Texas, we call it the death penalty.
*rimshot*


----------



## Aetius (Nov 16, 2011)

Use prisoners only for slave labor. 
Exterminate them all through labor.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 16, 2011)

I agree with everyone when they say that people who are severely retarded should be euthanized.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 16, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> I agree with everyone when they say that people who are severely retarded should be euthanized.


You and Tycho are the only two.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 16, 2011)

I think I was including the "locked-in syndrome" in my post as well. I forgot to specify that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 16, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> I think I was including the "locked-in syndrome" in my post as well. I forgot to specify that.


Pulling the plug on someone with locked-in syndrome is to put them out of pain, whereas eutanizing retarded individuals is just eugenics.


----------



## Sar (Nov 16, 2011)

BetrayerOfNihil said:


> Uhh, that I once played MW3 and thought it was decent? I think that opinion would appall others.


I AM APPALL.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 16, 2011)

I think people should be more nice and courteous to each other instead of minding their own business and being rude.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe there should be a drug test to even apply for welfare.


----------



## iconmaster (Nov 16, 2011)

-I believe in transhumanism, which is something a lot of my peers are afraid of. However, in the end, we control our systems and not the other way around.
-A lot of people are afraid of what is happening to the world. I do not see it as degradation, but simple change. People are always afraid of change, and it is a sad thing.


----------



## Rotsala (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe that this thread will succeed in reminding us all that we are all bad people


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 16, 2011)

Tycho said:


> I believe that severely mentally retarded human beings would probably be better off dead, euthanize 'em





Sparrowkin said:


> I agree with everyone when they say that people who are severely retarded should be euthanized.


One of my first friends growing up was a girl who'd become deaf and severely retarded due to lack of oxygen during her birth. She was lucky to survive and had terrible brain damage. Throughout her childhood, the docs told her mother that she would never be able to understand language, she'd never be able to be use the toilet, she'd be lucky to progress beyond the emotional intelligence of a 3-year-old. Told her ma that she should just be put in a home. Her ma didn't buy it. Did therapy for years. Taught her sign language, when the docs said she'd never communicate. Got her a cochlear implant later, taught her to speak and understand spoken language. Put her through years of physical therapy to help her coordination and balance. Taught her to dress herself and use the toilet and all these things we take for granted, when the docs said she'd never be able to care for herself. Taught her to make friends, when the docs said she'd never be able to form relationships. 

Did it take a long time? Yeah, depending on the exact thing she was always about 5-10 years behind. (I befriended her when I was 4-5, and she was 12-13, and we were the best of friends.) And there are some things, mostly physical, that will never go away. But if you meet her now--she's in her 30s--you'd never know. You'd think she was a little slow, maybe. But she's a radiantly happy person, with a husband and a child. If she'd been homed on the docs' good words? Never would have happened, no one would have put the energy into her. If she'd been euth'd on the docs' good words? Shit.

Some will never do what she did, sure. But don't be so fast to doom a group of people.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 16, 2011)

Rotsala said:


> I believe that this thread will succeed in reminding us all that we are all bad people


YUP


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Pulling the plug on someone with locked-in syndrome is to put them out of pain, whereas eutanizing retarded individuals is just eugenics.



When I lived in California I knew a woman who adopted various children, some with serious disabilities.  One of the children she had adopted was horribly physically abused as a baby and was blind, deaf, retarded, had to be fed through a stomach tube, and was unable to move herself around at all.  Her awareness was not much more than that of an eggplant.  She could make odd facial expressions and weird gurgling and bawling sounds.  That's it.  But hey, she wasn't a VEGETABLE, right? Right?


----------



## Xeno (Nov 16, 2011)

Doing something bad isn't always a bad thing.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 16, 2011)

Tycho said:


> When I lived in California I knew a woman who adopted various children, some with serious disabilities.  One of the children she had adopted was horribly physically abused as a baby and was blind, deaf, retarded, had to be fed through a stomach tube, and was unable to move herself around at all.  Her awareness was not much more than that of an eggplant.  She could make odd facial expressions and weird gurgling and bawling sounds.  That's it.  But hey, she wasn't a VEGETABLE, right? Right?


You should have clarified what you meant in the first place instead of,


Tycho said:


> I believe that severely mentally retarded human  beings would probably be better off dead, euthanize 'em


That gave everyone the thought that you meant killing people *JUST* for being retarded.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Pulling the plug on someone with locked-in syndrome is to put them out of pain, whereas eutanizing retarded individuals is just eugenics.




What about those with disorders that would cause them pain? The ones who cannot function without help? Who have to have their butts wiped and be fed from a bag just like those with locked-in syndrome? They are all in pain too. Most "retarded" individuals are quite intelligent, they just don't know any different from how they live. I have worked with plenty of people deemed "retarded" in both senses and have found them to be very intelligent, and that they hate their lives as they are. It would be putting them out of pain by 'pulling their plug' as well.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 16, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> What about those with disorders that would cause them pain? The ones who cannot function without help? Who have to have their butts wiped and be fed from a bag just like those with locked-in syndrome? They are all in pain too. Most "retarded" individuals are quite intelligent, they just don't know any different from how they live. I have worked with plenty of people deemed "retarded" in both senses and have found them to be very intelligent, and that they hate their lives as they are. It would be putting them out of pain by 'pulling their plug' as well.


Now you're just using Tycho's post as a jumping board to cover your ass.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You should have clarified what you meant in the first place instead of,
> 
> That gave everyone the thought that you meant killing people *JUST* for being retarded.



When I say SEVERELY retarded I mean "are incapable of interacting with the rest of the world in any meaningful way, have an extremely low awareness at or below that of a human infant, and have extremely little likelihood of improving".  The woman in Ad Hoc's story was an exception to the rule.

I mean seriously and hopelessly retarded.  A dead end.

Also, CF, it would not be eugenics.  That would imply that the retarded person being euthanized/culled/however you wish to word it was a potential contributor to the gene pool.  It's pruning the dead branches off a tree.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 16, 2011)

Tycho said:


> The woman in Ad Hoc's story was an exception to the rule.


And yet, she would have been destroyed, if such a policy were in place. 

Now you're going to say, "Well you only do it if x y z." And maybe there are some cases where euthanasia is appropriate, but clarify yourself in the first place, dude.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 16, 2011)

Tycho said:


> When I say retarded I mean "are incapable of interacting with the rest of the world in any meaningful way, have an extremely low awareness at or below that of a human infant, and have extremely little likelihood of improving".  The woman in Ad Hoc's story was an exception to the rule.
> 
> I mean seriously and hopelessly retarded.  A dead end.


A situation like that is understandable, if someone is essentially a human vegetable than they shouldn't be put through that.
That's only in extreme and dire situations though, and is a exception.
There's a difference between someone who lacks normal levels of intelligence and someone who is basically a human sack.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 16, 2011)

No imprisonment of political opposition?

Just imagine how easy political debates would be!


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 16, 2011)

I can tell exactly who will blast me for this.

Bush isn't a great president but I don't think he deserves nearly the amount of hate he gets.
I don't like the fact that transgendered people deserve some sort of special recognition or that they should be called the gender they want to be. Would you do the same for otherkin? Dress up/get all the surgery you want. Your chromosomes will never lie.
I think that some people who mold into certain personality archetypes are truly inferior to others in the world (douchebags, jocks, etc.) and I would have no trouble sacrificing them for any sort of arbitrary gain for normal people if given the chance.
I don't like Obama, though Romney and Gingrich are the only candidates the GOP is spitting out that I'll consider voting for.


----------



## Xeno (Nov 16, 2011)

I'd be surprised if this doesn't appall somebody "I believe Skyrim sucks."


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Now you're just using Tycho's post as a jumping board to cover your ass.




I never saw that post as I was typing mine. I can cover my own ass, thanks.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 16, 2011)

Homosexuals and Muslims are people with feelings and morales and rights and so-n.

...What? This concept quite obviously _does_ appall people. I can point to at least one person on FAF who would commit seppuku before admitting such, let alone the great world beyond our 55K members.



iconmaster said:


> -I believe in transhumanism, which is something a lot of my peers are afraid of. However, in the end, we control our systems and not the other way around.


 Transhumanism is not something to be afraid of. The rabid transhumanists, however, _are_. Seeing as you're a transhumanist, I imagine you're quite familiar with the sort.



iconmaster said:


> People are always afraid of change, and it is a sad thing.


It doesn't appall or offend me, but I can't help but sigh whenever I see this (or its common sibling, "afraid of things they don't know") used in a serious manner.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Nov 16, 2011)

- People should be allowed to commit suicide, for whatever reason they want. They don't owe it to others to stay alive. No amount of "I care about you" should should be forced on someone over their absolute desire to remove themself from the living world. It is their life, and their choice.

- Abortion should be allowed, regardless of reason, up until the baby is already coming out.

- Abortion or adopting-out should be mandatory for teenagers / children who don't have enough resources to care for the baby on their own.

- It's just as okay for a man to hit a woman, as it is for a woman to hit a man. I'm not saying they are "okay," in general, but the two situations should be regarded on the same level.

- Being drunk is not an acceptable excuse for cheating / flirting with someone else / kissing someone else.

- Parents should be forced to keep control of their children in public places, or mandatorily forced from the premises.

- Rapists and child molesters should be castrated.


----------



## Conker (Nov 16, 2011)

Vaelarsa said:


> - People should be allowed to commit suicide, for whatever reason they want. They don't owe it to others to stay alive. No amount of "I care about you" should should be forced on someone over their absolute desire to remove themself from the living world. It is their life, and their choice.
> 
> - Abortion should be allowed, regardless of reason, up until the baby is already coming out.


Don't agree with either of those, but mostly to an extent. If someone is suicidal, their loved ones should try and help them overcome their depression and urges instead of letting them off themselves. I do think assisted suicide is alright for terminally ill patients though, and maybe in a few cases outside of that, but for the most part, helping someone overcome the want to commit suicide should be stressed over letting that someone commit suicide. 

Also, I'm pretty much fine with the two trimester system we have in place. Abortion in the third trimester, I feel, is wrong. By that time, the fetus (though now I think it's possible to call it a baby) is so far developed that it does seem disturbing to go "let's terminate this bitch."


----------



## Jiangxi (Nov 16, 2011)

- As long as it doesn't involve me, I believe violence (war, political combat) is a necessary evil that both handicaps and redeems.

- Being gay can both be inherited from birth (not a choice) or 'brainwashed' (such as extreme abuse). It's pretty ignorant to say gay people can be born straight and brainwashed into being straight, but heterosexuals can't do the same.

- Food is food. If you let it be killed and sit it out to rot, that's not making a statement either. It just means the animal died without purpose or usage.

- Horror movies can be hilarious in the right context.

- Atheism and Christianity can both be ignorant and self-centered if practiced for the wrong and misinterpreted reasons.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe that there are truths in this world that are so unpopular and would hurt so many people that they'd hate you for telling them.

That should not stop you from telling them.


----------



## Conker (Nov 16, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> I believe that there are truths in this world that are so unpopular and would hurt so many people that they'd hate you for telling them.
> 
> That should not stop you from telling them.


I agree with this, until someone starts spouting a nonsense as a truth (see the WBC)


----------



## Jiangxi (Nov 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> I agree with this, until someone starts spouting a nonsense as a truth (see the WBC)



a.k.a cult.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe in killing my own food by my methods. 

I believe in eating an animal regardless of age. BRING ON THE FETUS >:V


----------



## Fay V (Nov 16, 2011)

I believe there are too many stupid people that use the excuse of "truth" to be complete dicks. I honestly believe that people are complacent and stop thinking and never actually seek truth.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 16, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I believe there are too many stupid people that use the excuse of "truth" to be complete dicks. I honestly believe that people are complacent and stop thinking and never actually seek truth.




I agree with the first one... but what does the second one mean, exactly? Could you please provide something more specific?


----------



## DarrylWolf (Nov 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> I agree with this, until someone starts spouting a nonsense as a truth (see the WBC)



Agreed. The WBC believes that Jesus died only for the elect, and given how they act and live, they must think that they are the only elect people on earth. But doesn't the New Testament make it clear that Jesus died for all? Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Gospel is that in convicting the entire world of sin, it eliminates any superiority we might feel towards anyone else. Who hasn't experienced the catharsis of looking down on people you consider inferior? I think Fred Phelps got absolutely addicted to doing that and the end result is the misanthropy we see coming from his sermons.

Unless there's some other nonsense you're referring to but that's what I think is nonsense about their hatred.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 16, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I believe there are too many stupid people that use the excuse of "truth" to be complete dicks. I honestly believe that people are complacent and stop thinking and never actually seek truth.


 They seek an explanation, and not understanding.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 16, 2011)

Attaman said:


> Homosexuals and Muslims are people with feelings and morales and rights and so-n.



My own parents disagree with the Muslim form of this and all I can do is be disappointed.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 16, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> Agreed. The WBC believes that Jesus died only for the elect, and given how they act and live, they must think that they are the only elect people on earth. But doesn't the New Testament make it clear that Jesus died for all?


 If you've been in any of FAF's theological debates, you'd know that's a resounding "No". Curiously enough, this answer is predominantly given by the Christian debaters.



DarrylWolf said:


> Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Gospel is that in convicting the entire world of sin, it eliminates any superiority we might feel towards anyone else.


 See my "Are people" post for why this statement from you would probably appall others (OH EM GEE YOU THINK I'M LIKE THEM SWARTHY TOWELHEADS?).




Commiecomrade said:


> My own parents disagree with the Muslim form of this and all I can do is be disappointed.



As do mine, or at least one of my parents. But then, said parent is also _bugfuck nuts_ and had to have my eldest sister _threaten to never let her see her grandchildren again_ to get her to stop throwing around the word "nigger" in their presence like it was the buzz word of the century.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 16, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> I agree with the first one... but what does the second one mean, exactly? Could you please provide something more specific?





Kit H. Ruppell said:


> They seek an explanation, and not understanding.


pretty much this ^ 
People don't fully seek the truth. The truth is hard, and the truth hurts. People just want an explanation. "x is bad because y" and they'll say it's the "truth" they are defending the "truth" but they aren't. they are parroting an idea. The truth must be questioned and challenged. 
There are too many fools that shut down when their "truth" is questioned. There are too many fools that lie, and twist, and cheat thinking the ends justify the means. 

I'm biased about this considering my field of study, but there are too many people in the world that don't actually know how to seek truth. too many people that say "I love debate" when they just want to argue till they win. To many sophists against philosophers


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 16, 2011)

Fay V said:


> pretty much this ^
> People don't fully seek the truth. The truth is hard, and the truth hurts. People just want an explanation. "x is bad because y" and they'll say it's the "truth" they are defending the "truth" but they aren't. they are parroting an idea. The truth must be questioned and challenged.
> There are too many fools that shut down when their "truth" is questioned. There are too many fools that lie, and twist, and cheat thinking the ends justify the means.
> 
> I'm biased about this considering my field of study, but there are too many people in the world that don't actually know how to seek truth. too many people that say "I love debate" when they just want to argue till they win. To many sophists against philosophers


And then you get those damned annoying existentialists that insist that "If it's believed by enough people, than that's what their reality is!". They're much like small children insisting that their imaginary friends are real "to them".


----------



## Conker (Nov 16, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> Agreed. The WBC believes that Jesus died only for the elect, and given how they act and live, they must think that they are the only elect people on earth. But doesn't the New Testament make it clear that Jesus died for all? Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Gospel is that in convicting the entire world of sin, it eliminates any superiority we might feel towards anyone else. Who hasn't experienced the catharsis of looking down on people you consider inferior? I think Fred Phelps got absolutely addicted to doing that and the end result is the misanthropy we see coming from his sermons.
> 
> Unless there's some other nonsense you're referring to but that's what I think is nonsense about their hatred.


I was thinking more along the lines of "GOD HATES FAGS AND FAGS CAUSE NATURAL DISASTERS" but what you said works, albeit it uses more words


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> FAGS CAUSE NATURAL DISASTERS


It's true remember the Indonesian tsunami?  Me.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 16, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> And then you get those damned annoying existentialists that insist that "If it's believed by enough people, than that's what their reality is!". They're much like small children insisting that their imaginary friends are real "to them".


"It's all relative!" "Yeah but we still have an hour of class so go sit in your corner and let the adults talk"


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 17, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> Is that even possible? Or do you perscribe to the "We'll eventually mature" dogma?


We'll mature at our usual rate if we don't take control of that rate.  But if we do, and if we force it, I'll bet it would turn exponential.
Kind of reminds me of something else I've taken to considering (though I don't know if I'll say yet that I 'believe' it), which is that this idea of there being something special and sacred about human fallibility is kind of bullshitty.  Like, you watch shows like, say, Star Trek TNG, and a bunch of episodes focus on Data trying to be more human.  Why would he want to do that?  What's so great about our emotions, anyway?  We don't have anything to compare them to, so there's no possibility for an objective stance on this issue.  We like ourselves because we're supposed to propagate the species... that's all.  It doesn't mean our way is the best.
So if we all 'lose our humanity' and becomes super intelligent robot beings, I've never seen anyone make a clear-cut case why that would be 'wrong'.  It's just based on some quasi-superstitious belief that somehow our moral behavior is tied to the way our brains evolved, and that if we improved on the brain as a mechanism, that this would somehow inevitably lead to a superiority complex and the loss of civilization.  It's probably equally likely that it won't.  This is a realm we're only just now starting to consider, so it's WAY premature to be tossing it out the window as a bad idea.
So I say, let's keep at it and see what we can discover.  I think people are capable of a lot more than we give ourselves credit for, supposing some of us still get the drive every now and then.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 17, 2011)

Things I believe that may appall others...

- White people should have conquered Canada outright, instead of pussy-footing the issue with the aboriginal population. The aboriginals should have been forced to adapt instead of given reserves to live on. It would have been very hard on them off the start, but I don't know if I would consider it racist in the end. Bullshitting them, segregating them onto reserves, and creating long-term socioeconomic problems with no easy fix, sounds much more problematic and racist to me.
- Space Jesus was frozen in carbonite for our sins.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 17, 2011)

I'm curious. Did canada do the boarding schools for natives as well?
I know that's where a shit ton of issues with USA native americans comes from.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 17, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I'm curious. Did canada do the boarding schools for natives as well?
> I know that's where a shit ton of issues with USA native americans comes from.



Yes. Yes, Canada did.

All my knowledge on this topic has gotten pretty dusty now, but it amounts to Canada handling it all very stupidly. In hindsight, many think the Canadian government went too far, I don't think they went far enough. The assimilation effort was too half-assed to actually have any positive results. Reserves and reserve funding is a huge waste of resources that benefit no one, not even the people living on them.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 17, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Yes. Yes, Canada did.
> 
> All my knowledge on this topic has gotten pretty dusty now, but it amounts to Canada handling it all very stupidly. In hindsight, many think the Canadian government went too far, I don't think they went far enough. The assimilation effort was too half-assed to actually have any positive results. Reserves and reserve funding is a huge waste of resources that benefit no one, not even the people living on them.



One problem is that the other option destroys a culture. There is really no way to quantify the value of a culture, which holds the knowledge and customs of generations of people. Once you kill or convert all of it's members then the culture is gone, you can't recreate it from histories and research notes because that's not how enculturation works.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 17, 2011)

Onnes said:


> One problem is that the other option destroys a culture. There is really no way to quantify the value of a culture, which holds the knowledge and customs of generations of people. Once you kill or convert all of it's members then the culture is gone, you can't recreate it from histories and research notes because that's not how enculturation works.



I know, I'm fine with that. Frankly, it's happened to many cultures in history, and with much greater success than the 200+ years of poverty and segregation issues our dumb method has resulted in. The results are going to be the exact same anyways (provided things actually get better..), Canada just took the slow and painful route.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 17, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Yes. Yes, Canada did.
> 
> All my knowledge on this topic has gotten pretty dusty now, but it amounts to Canada handling it all very stupidly. In hindsight, many think the Canadian government went too far, I don't think they went far enough. The assimilation effort was too half-assed to actually have any positive results. Reserves and reserve funding is a huge waste of resources that benefit no one, not even the people living on them.



Maybe it's not the same thing as what I'm talking about, because in the first time in the thread I am appalled. The "assimilation" of the american boarding schools were barabaric. It started with pulling kids away from family to a foriegn place where they were physically and mentally abused in order to forcefully rip away their culture from them. 
There is a lot of violence in the culture now after that shit went down. I agree that assimilation is important. I don't think it is fair to natives to force them onto reserves, but the way the natives were "assimilated" has to be one of the worst ways possible. Too much focus on destroying the culture versus teaching and training people to work and live in modern society. 
So you have a ruined generation with a history of violence and an aversion to "education" that perpetuates as the new generation is given shit concerning education. 
I'm going to stop before I start snarling and spitting over the current educational system on reservations. 

I will say that assimilation starts with education. I've had too many native american friends that commented that they didn't realize that natives could even be teachers. All they saw were the same barbie dolls fresh out of college. 
Thankfully there is a highly successful program to help indian educators get the required courses in a convenient way. A better system with teachers that can relate to the students allows for natives to keep their culture and heritage like every other people and still assimilate into non-native life.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 17, 2011)

- every single religion on this planet contains the potential for incredible good and incredible evil.   No one is better then the other, and they all link together.  Religion should never be taken literally; it is written by people, and all people are inherently flawed.  Reject whatever scripture, tenant, whatever will bring harm to another, or yourself.  Fuck the 'all or nothing' mentality of Religion.  Whatever harms another soul should never be put into practice.

- Human sexuality is not a choice.  However, it wavers between preference until your mid twenties to early thirties.  

- Humanity is on the cusp of a paradigm shift that will happen within the next decade, possibly by the end of next year.  We're either going to evolve as a species or destroy ourselves completely.  Earth will take care of herself, as she always does.

- Pot should never be legalized.  Not because I'm against the use of it, but because when it is legalized then whatever company that will sell it will lace it with all sorts of crap they would call preservatives.  It will be exactly what they did with tobacco; filled with enough carcinogens to make it harmful, and more addictive then it ever could be.

- George W. Bush should be tried for war-crimes.

- Ghosts are real.  I have seen them, and watched them move shit around.  They're not to be feared unless you piss them off.

- Clowns, however, are scary as hell.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> - Clowns, however, are scary as hell.


Ah I see you saw the movie IT as a kid as well?


----------



## Fay V (Nov 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Ah I see you saw the movie IT as a kid as well?



Never saw ITalways hated clowns. Its the plastered smile. Its a disturbing for a face to be of like having a permanent expression.  Its the same concept that makes people hate mascots. I have a professor doing firm research on the uncanny value and I bet 5$ facial recognition is a big part of that.


----------



## Cain (Nov 17, 2011)

Animism?


----------



## Tango (Nov 17, 2011)

*in his best R Kelly voice* I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I dream about it every night and day. Down some shrooms and just fly away!


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 17, 2011)

I believe that people who get angry over the word "nigger" (and other related words e.g "faggot") despite not being put into any offensive context whatsoever are being very stupid and are making a mountain out of a molehill. A word on its own has never hurt anybody and never will. It's the context and the usage that matters.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 17, 2011)

Gibby said:


> I believe that people who get angry over the word "nigger" (and other related words e.g "faggot") despite not being put into any offensive context whatsoever are being very stupid and are making a mountain out of a molehill. A word on its own has never hurt anybody and never will. It's the context and the usage that matters.



-I agree. That can be extended to the so-called "bad words". 

-Words, in my opinion, have a certain "strenght" based on their social connotations and sounds; sometimes a curse word is neccesary, sometimes insults are necessary, and in those cases, "lighter" words just won't help your case or express your whole idea. _Ad hominem_ and courtesy are reasonable exceptions, though.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 17, 2011)

This also brings me to another point. I've seen and heard of people flipping their shit over this snippet of south park. Mountain out of a molehill again. An offensive word was used for comedic purposes, and not made to offend anyone AT ALL. There is not a single attack against any minority there, but it was recieved as so. It's not trying to spread hate, it's trying to be FUNNY with the situation presented, and it actually worked. 

What's even more ridiculous is people getting their knickers in a twist about the same words regarding a minority despite not being part of the relevant minority themselves. IMO, that's another show of bigotry, it's as if they feel that those in that minority don't know when they should and shouldn't be offended, so they be offended FOR them.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 17, 2011)

I believe 90% of things stated ITT are retarded.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 17, 2011)

I honestly think that one could find other words to use if they tried hard enough, but this also reminds me that I am taking the social stigma of those words and thinking of them as "bad" words. :/ Sometimes I have to remember that social stigmas are unnecessary in cases similar to this. 

I just don't really like it when every other word is a "swear" word.

"This *** *** is a *** *** ***. And ** her and *** *** because *** she is *** and a ***." 

But using it once in awhile is okay. One can sound educated while still using these words if they are used tactically enough.

I also hate clowns and Raggedy Ann and Andy.


----------



## thewall (Nov 17, 2011)

I'm pro life.  I also believe in a God, but I try to be tolerant of those who believe otherwise.  Some atheists will be offended anyway.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Nov 17, 2011)

I believe that we all are stardust. That is to say, that without the processes of the stars compressing and making heavier elements, that we simply would not be here today. We owe our existence to the violent births and deaths of the stars in our vast cosmos.


----------



## General-jwj (Nov 17, 2011)

mike37 said:


> I'm pro life.  I also believe in a God, but I try to be tolerant of those who believe otherwise.  Some atheists will be offended anyway.



I'm a pragmatic agnostic. Come at me bro :V


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 17, 2011)

-I think religion can be the human's greatest consolation and also his greatest tribute to himself (in some ways).


----------



## thewall (Nov 17, 2011)

General-jwj said:


> I'm a pragmatic agnostic. Come at me bro :V



Sorry, I wasn't trying to pick a fight.  Do you need a hug?  :3


----------



## Aetius (Nov 17, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> Animism?



BURN THE HEATHEN! :V


----------



## ForestShepherd (Nov 17, 2011)

I totaly agree with you dude I am what my family calls the black sheep of the family because of my own belifs and they say its beaue I have bad blood funny huh


----------



## ForestShepherd (Nov 17, 2011)

Hah my pup is named Cosmos, but you are right about that. Life was created on this planet and countless speices have appeared and dissapered. Even if human beings eventualy became exticnt the earth would continue to travel acorss the galaxy without a second thought. Human existince is just a mere flicker across history and time


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 17, 2011)

Me showing my nuts.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Nov 17, 2011)

-Religion is the worst problem humanity faces and is simply a weapon for spreading ignorance, fear, and blind faith
-Feminists don't want equality, they want to be superior
-Minorities can be some of the most racist and intolerant, and the actions of a few are greatly hurting their progress as a whole
-I don't support affirmative action by race, that in itself is racist; rather it should be based on environment and income level
-Human depravity and greed know no bounds
-Some people shouldn't be allowed to breed


----------



## Dreaming (Nov 17, 2011)

I believe that Frankie Boyle is tame.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 17, 2011)

I believe that every human being is born with an innate capacity to commit atrocities, given proper circumstances.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> -I don't support affirmative action by race, that in itself is racist; rather it should be based on environment and income level
> -Some people shouldn't be allowed to breed


That's cause you didn't live when racism was government instituted, racism is now hidden, still there, but you can't get away with some shit anymore.
You first buddy, if you say some people shouldn't be allowed, only if you volunteer first.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Nov 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You first buddy, if you say some people shouldn't be allowed, only if you volunteer first.



I can not, and never want to, have children
I say some people should not be able to have children because I seriously question their ability to be good parents


----------



## DarrylWolf (Nov 17, 2011)

Tango_D said:


> *in his best R Kelly voice* I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I dream about it every night and day. Down some shrooms and just fly away!



Or maybe be an existentialist. I believe I can fly.
 SPLAT!


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> I can not, and never want to, have children
> I say some people should not be able to have children because I seriously question their ability to be good parents


The problem is that you could never implement it without it being used as a political tool for preventing the opposition from breeding.
For example if it was implemented a politician could bump registered voters from the opposing political party to the top of the list.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The problem is that you could never implement it without it being used as a political tool for preventing the opposition from breeding.
> For example if it was implemented a politician could bump registered voters from the opposing political party to the top of the list.



"You want to vote for the anti-eugenics party? Clearly insane. Looks like you can't have children."


----------



## Francis Vixen (Nov 17, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> Some people are just wired differently and do not fit in to the molds of society.


^ This statement on its own is one I can agree with wholeheartedly.

Too many people suffer from a terrible mental illness that deludes them into thinking they and their friends are normal and that everyone different is weird.  This Pervasive Reality Inhibiting Cognitive Kvetch just makes them all PRICKs.

(almost nothing that fit the acronym started with K)


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> "You want to vote for the anti-eugenics party? Clearly insane. Looks like you can't have children."


This is why I think we should have gene therapy, racism and eugenics is on the premise of <insert group> is fundamentally inferior.
By using gene therapy any genetic defects will be whipped out in only a few generations.
At the very worse the world will become like GATTACA, but considering the utter number of people who have been killed because of racism and sterilized cause of eugenics it's a far less evil.


----------



## Namba (Nov 17, 2011)

I believe in God, creation and treating people with decency no matter who they are, where they come from or what they've done. I'm pro-life and I think if people were to set aside their differences for a day you'd see a drastic change in just about everyone you encounter. That's it.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 17, 2011)

Anal Cunt is a decent grindcore band.


----------



## Namba (Nov 17, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> Anal Cunt is a decent grindcore band.



Best troll band ever!!! R.I.P. Seth Putnam.


----------



## Conker (Nov 18, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> Anal Cunt is a decent grindcore band.


I believe that anal cunt is the best combination of words since "fuck you"


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 19, 2011)

Francis Vixen said:


> Too many people suffer from a terrible mental illness that deludes them into thinking they and their friends are normal and that everyone different is weird.  This Pervasive Reality Inhibiting Cognitive Kvetch just makes them all PRICKs.



And also, there are people with a very sad disease... their eyes roll around in their head if they hear something they don't like! I think it might fit in with that illness. Other symptoms include a swollen head, the propensity to wear clothes too tight, and the love to think that they will marry someone important and not work a day in their lives.

My roommate has that illness. I stay away from her so she doesn't pass it on to me. I hear it can be passed on by people chewing with their mouths open or something.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe a closed mind is the most tragic thing a person can possess. 

I am opposed to all forms of censorship.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 19, 2011)

Ishtar5 said:


> I believe a closed mind is the most tragic thing a person can possess.
> 
> I am opposed to all forms of censorship.


Is it lonely in that hugbox of yours?


----------



## Ames (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe I can fly.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe I can touch the sky.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 19, 2011)

For some reason, some people get pissed off when I tell them to jack off for me on webcam

soo that.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 19, 2011)

I am in full support of extending our present obscenity laws to cover shock sites which host beheading and murder videos. Any argument that can be used to keep child pornography as a matter of the state and federal governments discretion and censorship, apply here. 
I am opposed to moral insurrectionists who wish to undermine the human condition and the basic rights of others just to satiate their own addictions. 
I am opposed to animal cruelty, and thus believe that the present state of agriculture should focus on processing food stock with efficiency and humanity. As omnivores who require meat in their diet, and also as creatures capable of empathy beyond the competitive demands of natural selection, we should endeavor to make sure that our prey do not suffer indignity or atrocity. Or, if the appeals of a perfect system be applied to such a thought, that we avoid indignity and atrocity when possible. 
I believe that art, in other words, rendered depictions, music, etc., should not fall within the constraints of an obscenity argument. Least of all, because art offers the moral delinquent a point of social and moral failure, and society a valid point of communication, observation, and growth. 
I believe that regardless of our demand to be moral agents acting out of obligation, and not sympathy, that acting out of sympathy is motherfucking tits and totally acceptable. 

... I think about it every night and day.


----------



## Itakirie (Nov 19, 2011)

There is no appalling belief I have that has not been said in this thread at least once. AKA that severely retarded people should be euthanized and that reassignment surgery is expensive genital mutilation.

Edit: I believe alcohol should be illegal.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe the speed limit exists for a reason (gas mileage if nothing else) and usually don't exceed it more than a few miles. 

_Spread my wings and fly away_


----------



## OfficerBadger (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe you should research something before making a fucking opinion about it.


----------



## TraceGrey (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe that 'MySpace pictures' aren't art, no matter what people say about art being in the eyes of the beholder.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 19, 2011)

Rousseau was wrong. 

That is all.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe that people who think alcohol is not harmful to the body should be castrated.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 19, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I believe I can touch the sky.


I think about it every night and day


Ad  Hoc said:


> I believe the speed limit exists for a reason (gas mileage  if nothing else) and usually don't exceed it more than a few miles.
> 
> _Spread my wings and fly away_


I believe I can soar
"Fuck the cops" -neutrinos



I believe that the government should have a government offered insurance that you can buy.
Also that if a company fucks up they can get a bailout, but only with serious direct governmental oversight and the government taking control of it, massive CEO paycuts, hearings to see if they did anything illegal, etc.

That gene therapy should be promoted.


----------



## israfur (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe I can soar


----------



## Pine (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe that Britney Spears is Baskin-Robbins's 32nd flavor.


----------



## Conker (Nov 19, 2011)

Itakirie said:


> Edit: I believe alcohol should be illegal.


I believe you should never hold any political power so as to not make that a law >:[


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 19, 2011)

Conker said:


> I believe you should never hold any political power so as to not make that a law >:[


I may like alcohol once in a while, but it needs to get taxed the shit out of it.


----------



## Itakirie (Nov 19, 2011)

Conker said:


> I believe you should never hold any political power so as to not make that a law >:[



I also believe that if I play my cards right, I can become future president of the United States. :v


----------



## Tycho (Nov 19, 2011)

Itakirie said:


> I also believe that if I play my cards right, I can become future president of the United States. :v



You just need to be manipulative and really good at covering your tracks.  oh, and attractive.


----------



## Azure (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe everyone should get in at least one fight, and lose at least once.

I belive you should never rat on your friends, and you should always keep your mouth shut.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 19, 2011)

We need slave labor camps for criminals.


----------



## Namba (Nov 19, 2011)

I believe that sometimes shit happens. The circumstances may not always be because of you.


----------



## Conker (Nov 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I may like alcohol once in a while, but it needs to get taxed the shit out of it.


Fuck no. The shit I like is expensive enough as it is.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 20, 2011)

Yikes, where to begin?

Well, I guess I'll start with the fact that I'm a Christian furry.  That alone seems to piss off both many Christians and many furries.

I believe fundamentalist Christianity and "feel good" Christianity are equally flawed, and lead far more people away from God than they lead people toward God.  I believe many pastors know this, but spew their false teachings anyway.  "Feel good" Christianity is great for packing the pews and raking in the donations.  Fundamentalist Christianity appeals to the many bigots who want to party like it's 1959.  I believe pastors who encourage these false teachings are going to be held accountable for their teachings.  As a result, I believe a majority of Christian pastors are actually going to Hell.  Needless to say, this isn't a belief that makes me popular in many churches.  Nonetheless, I have a good basis for this belief: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in peopleâ€™s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."  (Jesus speaking to the religious leaders of His day, Matthew 23:13.  And yes, I fully believe those words apply to wayward religious leaders today just as much as they applied to wayward religious leaders 2000 years ago.)

I believe a hypothetical all-powerful being can create a make an object so large they cannot lift it, but they can lift it anyway.  Why?  Because Infinity (big object) > Infinity (lifting force) is undefined, being both true and false at the same time.  The problem lies not with the concept of an all-powerful being, but in our understanding of the concept of infinity.  I've lost count how many times someone tried to use this in a debate about religion, having no clue that the problem just boils down to basic math.  Even if I didn't believe in God, I'd point out the fundamental flaw in this and all variants of "infinity can't be bigger than infinity" arguments.  Infinity isn't a number, it's a mathematical concept.  So yes, infinity can be bigger than infinity, even when it's not.

I'm a fiscal conservative, social moderate.  That doesn't piss off too many furries (since many furries have a Libertarian mindset, which isn't all that far off from my political beliefs) but I tend to piss off a LOT of mainstream Democrats (who tend to think big spending is the answer to everything) and Republicans (who seem to think that outlawing abortion and giving money to the rich will cure all society's problems.)  NOTE: by "fiscal conservative" I mean I believe the government should, in general, work to balance the budget through limited spending and responsible tax policy.  Spending like a drunken sailor and cutting taxes on the top 1% is hardly sound fiscal policy.  Despite what many Republicans claim, Bush and others like him are NOT fiscal conservatives!

Those are the big ones.  Tho I do occasionally manage to piss in some poor chap's Cheerios by saying something obvious like: if you don't bust your ass, you have only yourself to blame when your life ends up being a complete mess.  You'd think that would be common knowledge, but for some reason people today don't like that being pointed out.  "Be responsible for my own life?  WTF, people still believe that?!"  Yeah, I get that a lot of people are hurting and are doing their best to find a job and live a better life.  But for every one who is in that state, I seem to find two more who do nothing but sit on their ass & cry like they're a victim but who aren't willing to lift a finger to change their lot in life.


----------



## The_Lightning_Fox (Nov 20, 2011)

@Telnac TL;DR

I believe that there is only one rightful form of blatent discrimination... against stupid/ignorant people (the two usually go together). Get educated or get lost!

I also believe that criminals should work building a trans-continental highspeed railway. Better yet, lets (the government) commision construction companies to do that!


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Nov 20, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Is it lonely in that hugbox of yours?



It would be if I wasn`t so introverted. 

I also believe a sense of superiority is rarely deserved by those expressing it. 



Luti Kriss said:


> I believe that sometimes shit happens. The circumstances may not always be because of you.



I believe what happens will happen, was always destined to happen and cannot un-happen. The evidence for this is clear: Because it happened.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Nov 20, 2011)

I have an irrational fear/hatred of children


----------



## Wyldfyre (Nov 20, 2011)

Hooh boy, where do I start...

Religion has done way more harm than good in the world and only serves as a positive ideology for its followers. 
I believe in psychics, mediumship, tarot, chi, all that jazz. 
I believe that killing of any kind is overkill. (Humans) 
The thought of eating meat or drinking milk makes me sick. 
I'm "pro-life", as people say. 
America's military needs to be confined to its own borders and not let outside into the world. (Half joke) 
I don't see why nudity or sexual subjects are so taboo.
Society doesn't work. Its constructs were put in place for an age different to ours. We've moved on but our morals, laws and economies haven't. 
I like Twilight. 
Might add more when I remember them.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Nov 20, 2011)

I believe in Anarchy.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 20, 2011)

Ah, I love these threads. They make me want to strangle a half of the people here. :Vc



dinosaurdammit said:


> I believe there should be a drug test to even apply for welfare.


Before I can rage you should clarify if this is to offer additional help for those suffering from drug abuse or _to deny them means to satisfy basic human needs_. "Don't hit a man when he's down", no?



Commiecomrade said:


> I don't like the fact that transgendered people deserve some sort of special recognition or that they should be called the gender they want to be. Would you do the same for otherkin? Dress up/get all the surgery you want. Your chromosomes will never lie.


Because it is an internationally scientifically recognised medical condition which is _only_ treatable by assimilation to the experienced gender, and there is enough pain and human suffering caused without your expression of ignorance, hate and projected penis envy? Not to mention the irony of this 'special recognition' you spew speak of is absurd whilst we, ourselves, enjoy and take a _magnitude_ _of privileges_ for granted. I don't think you're in a position to criticise your parents racist stance on Muslims if you yourself hold these kind of homo/transphobic beliefs.



> I think that some people who mold into certain personality archetypes  are truly inferior to others in the world (douchebags, jocks, etc.) and I  would have no trouble sacrificing them for any sort of arbitrary gain  for normal people if given the chance.


Lucky for you we, at large, do not feel the same. Who did you guess would blast at you for this? I'm not arrogant enough to take an honour without verification. 



greg-the-fox said:


> -Feminists don't want equality, they want to be superior


Source, please, my inferior and bitter male thingy.



Bambi said:


> As omnivores *who* *require meat in their diet*


Could you share with me how have I survived these last (almost) two years, mio bambino? AM I A GOD!? :V



Telnac said:


> I'm a fiscal conservative, social moderate.  That  doesn't piss off too many furries (since many furries have a Libertarian  mindset, which isn't all that far off from my political beliefs) but *I  tend to piss off a LOT of mainstream Democrats (who tend to think big  spending is the answer to everything)*


Is it only me or has history proven that only 'liberals' can hold a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility? Just look at the budgets of 'fiscal conservatives' in the US; they obviously only know (or care) how to phuck it up.

There is an amusing picture to demonstrate this.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Nov 20, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> Religion has done way more harm than good in the world and only serves as a positive ideology for its followers.
> I believe in psychics, mediumship, tarot, chi, all that jazz.



Holy irony, Batman!
Well okay, it's kind of a stretch :T
But both are rooted in superstition and preying on people's gullibility


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 20, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> Hooh boy, where do I start...
> 
> Religion has done way more harm than good in the world and only serves as a positive ideology for its followers.
> I believe in psychics, mediumship, tarot, chi, all that jazz.



Good to see you're keeping it empirical. :v 

On a related note: I believe that religion plays an important role in philosophy and culture, and that it would be foolish to ignore or dismiss it.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Could you share with me how have I survived these last (almost) two years, mio bambino? AM I A GOD!? :V


Hm? Okay, I'll bite.

You can survive on fruits, vegetables, nuts, etc., but my position was that we should attempt to reduce unnecessary burdens to the state of agriculture and how we process food stock since it is well within our capacity to do so. Not just for our own sake, as both parties, prey and predator, appear to suffer multiple indignities when the industry of making farmed foods and meat available cuts corners. 

You appear to be taking my position entirely out of context using a straw man argument, which is what some people are prone to doing when they're so offended by something they cannot afford some elasticity in how somethings are read. So, let me clarify:

While protein can be acquired from the 'meat' in common nuts, it is nowhere near the amount that can be digested from animal meat, and a change in our evolutionary history highlights the importance of that diet to our growth and evolution as a species. 1 Add to that the increased demand for meat products in the United States 2, and the 'as omnivores who require meat' part should now be more concise, and less controversial.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 20, 2011)

I believe its better to have idea's than beliefs. You can change a idea, changing a belief is harder.
The only immoral sexual preferences are bestiality and pedophilia. Everything else is okay.
I believe that religion is a machine that was intended and still is controlling people.
I believe in writing good poetry and expressing our other self.
I believe we Furries can bring more acceptance and understanding to the public if they showed what most furries are.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 20, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Hm? Okay, I'll bite.
> 
> You can survive on fruits, vegetables, nuts, etc., but my position was that we should attempt to reduce unnecessary burdens to the state of agriculture and how we process food stock since it is well within our capacity to do so. Not just for our own sake, as both parties, prey and predator, appear to suffer multiple indignities when the industry of making farmed foods and meat available cuts corners.
> 
> ...


You just cannot take sarcasm, can you? The fault _cannot_ lie with me at this point. D:


----------



## Bambi (Nov 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You just cannot take sarcasm, can you? The fault _cannot_ lie with me at this point. D:


Alright, that does it Lizzie!

You and me. 
The playground. 
*After school!*

And in answer to your question, it's honestly hard to tell when someones being sarcastic. :V faces aside, they can be a little confusing when people also use them to veil a like without stating so directly, when it was my understanding that they were supposed to imply mild sarcasm.

:V /spins my helicopter rotor hat


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 20, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe we Furries can bring more acceptance and understanding to the public if they showed what most furries are.



I believe this is a ridiculous notion and whoever suggests that furries can or should become "mainstream" or "accepted" needs to get over their persecution complex and learn not to define themselves solely on their personal interests.

I believe spending any extended amount of time on detailing why you hate something is less you trying to convince other people you don't like said thing and more you trying to convince yourself you're not a fan.

I believe some of the greatest poets of our time are hip-hop artists.

I believe you can't spell "Elite" without "Eli".

I still believe Tim Tebow is a horrible quarterback, not that's he's a horrible player.

I believe Dos Equis should NEVER stop The Most Interesting Man in the World campaign.

I believe crabs are 20% cooler than all other animals.

I believe some level of faith can add to someone's well-being, and that proof or validation for such is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 20, 2011)

I should've 'this' your post. I think I'll do that now.



Bambi said:


> Alright, that does it Lizzie!
> 
> You and me.
> The playground.
> *After school!*


You're _so_ dead.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 20, 2011)

Ishtar5 said:


> I believe in Anarchy.


Anarchy is retarded, it always leads to a more strict ruling.
I bet you would be one of those people who scream out ANARCHY! FUCK YEA! Then get robbed and go "HEY WHERE ARE THE POLICE IVE BEEN ROBBED." Or you could be like "OMG IVE BEEN STABBED SOMEONE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" Anarchy bro... You mad?



Lizzie said:


> Ah, I love these threads. They make me want to strangle a half of the people here. :Vc
> 
> Before I can rage you should clarify if this is to offer additional help for those suffering from drug abuse or _to deny them means to satisfy basic human needs_. "Don't hit a man when he's down", no?


Where I come from people use welfare money to buy drugs and not feed their kids. If they want help then they need to get clean- in the mean time the kids need to be taken away and the parent sent to rehab. IF YOU DO DRUGS AND YOU APPLY FOR WELFARE THEN USE THAT MONEY TO BUY DRUGS YOU MAKE ME AN ANGRY SERGAL >:C 

Because there are people out there that need that help that wont waste it. I am all for pot and its legalization but if you say you need food then by god buy food.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 20, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> I believe that killing of any kind is overkill. (Humans)


Er, what exactly are you saying here? That only humans kill? That only Humans kill unjustifiably? That only kills by humans are overkill / unjustifiable?
I'd argue that all those are, quite readily, bugfuck nuts to think, if only because five seconds with Google shows you need to find a very special someone to compare with what some animals do naturally.



Wyldfyre said:


> The thought of eating meat or drinking milk makes me sick.


Hope you like your brain decaying early and your children malnourished. 


Wyldfyre said:


> Society doesn't work. Its constructs were put in place for an age different to ours. We've moved on but our morals, laws and economies haven't.


Haha, what? You think society should be scrapped? What, pray tell, do we replace it with? Mind, there is a _very_ noticeable irony in the assumptions made toward humanity above, but then going "Oh and the thing that obviously separates us from animals is bad".


Wyldfyre said:


> I like Twilight.


Oh, so we can at least confirm the bugfuck nuts. :V


----------



## Azure (Nov 20, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Good to see you're keeping it empirical. :v
> 
> On a related note: I believe that religion plays an important role in philosophy and culture, and that it would be foolish to ignore or dismiss it.


Conversely, I think culture has become mostly irrelevant in this day and age, given globalization, the homogenization of entire nations, and the fact that most of it is the dregs from useless, intolerably stupid societies. But I think that culture being any kind of defining force in morals is dumb to begin with, so I'm clearly biased.

EDIT- Also philosophy. Almost utterly useless. Except medical ethics.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 20, 2011)

Azure said:


> Conversely, I think culture has become mostly irrelevant in this day and age, given globalization, the homogenization of entire nations, and the fact that most of it is the dregs from useless, intolerably stupid societies. But I think that culture being any kind of defining force in morals is dumb to begin with, so I'm clearly biased.



I sometimes think like this as well.

Edit: 
Off-topic: I'm marveled at how civil this thread has been.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 20, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> Hooh boy, where do I start...
> 
> Religion has done way more harm than good in the world and only serves as a positive ideology for its followers.
> 
> ...


1. Religion has lead to genocide, segregation, racism, execution, torture, you name it. Though it brings people together, Religion also causes more problems than it is worth. Think about it: most psychos that you read about in the papers believe that there are angels and demons in their heads. Hitler believed a religion was wrong, so he killed all of the people who believed in it. Add the plights of Muslims in America, Asia, and Europe today. The mass killings in South Africa, the Salem Witch Trials, the Dark Ages, and many many more things were caused by precious Religion. Religion is something to believe because one does not want to blame themselves for bad actions, or realize that they are the ones that initiated the good actions that happened to them, instead calling them "trials" and "blessings" or saying that their spiritual leader made them do the things they do. And don't get me started on the Bible.... that book should be banned for all the rated X stuff in it... so as you can see you might need to look at religion again and see that EVERY positive thing has to have negatives or it would not exist.

2. Animals kill just like humans do. Society is what keeps you thinking that it is not okay. This directly contradicts your #5 point, where you say society is bad.

3. Good luck when you get severe Iron-deficient Anemia like I did, or when your hair falls out like my sister's did. Not eating meat can have serious health problems. Heck, not eating enough of it put me in the hospital. Not drinking milk can cause serious bone problems. Why do you think that vegetarians have to take so many supplementary vitamins? Our bodies were made to eat both meats and plants. Just because it had a face, doesn't mean it's wrong to taste. Humans drink milk... is it bad to breast-feed your baby? Or do you think that is wrong, too?

4.And you are also against killing. Humans kill for self-defense. Those who are against wars are also all for being protected. You like that your country is not being taken over every 5 minutes, yes? Thank your military today. I know I do.

5. You already killed this point earlier in your list, so I don't need to waste my energy typing about it.


----------



## Conker (Nov 20, 2011)

I believe hangovers serve an important function, even though I have a terrible one right now and hate the fact that they exist.

But, they usually keep me from drinking too much, and if they didn't exist people would probably be piss drunk all the time. Or, those that have problems controlling themselves or those that are irresponsible (some of my friends)


----------



## Bambi (Nov 20, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> 1. Religion has lead to genocide, segregation, racism, execution, torture, you name it.


So have causes. 1

Speaking of causes, religion isn't always the most prominent, although it is the most easily justifiable. For example, explain Alexander the Great. Was his conquest sterile of the same problem, or were there more of them than we commonly accept there to be? 





Sparrowkin said:


> Hitler believed a religion was wrong, so he killed all of the people who believed in it.


All of the people who believed in it? Hitler's regime was responsible for killing homosexuals and atheists, prominent philosophers, even the handicapped. Killing someone else because of their religion, or lack there of, does not mean that their personal beliefs were more responsible for their death than their murderers; that's just blaming the victim.

Members of the Waffen-SS were also predominantly Lutheran, making religion at this point a non-sequitur.


Sparrowkin said:


> Add the plights of Muslims in America, Asia, and Europe today. The mass killings in South Africa, the Salem Witch Trials, the Dark Ages, and many many more things were caused by precious Religion.


You're sure all of this was because of someones religion, and not someones will to conquest, personal corruption, military might, race, etc., rather than "just" religion?


----------



## Bliss (Nov 20, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Where I come from people use welfare money to buy drugs and not feed their kids. If they want help then they need to get clean- in the mean time the kids need to be taken away and the parent sent to rehab. IF YOU DO DRUGS AND YOU APPLY FOR WELFARE THEN USE THAT MONEY TO BUY DRUGS YOU MAKE ME AN ANGRY SERGAL >:C
> 
> Because there are people out there that need that help that wont waste it. I am all for pot and its legalization but if you say you need food then by god buy food.


Get better welfare.



Bambi said:


> You're sure all of this was because of someones  religion, and not someones will to conquest, personal corruption,  military might, race, etc., rather than "just" religion?


It's much easier being a witch in this age. :V


----------



## Bambi (Nov 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> It's much easier being a witch in this age. :V


Where is my hat?

Where is my ... fucking, black, pointy fucking ... witches hat? I need to go get one. Not for the sake of this thread, but mainly because I miss actually having one. So ridiculous.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 20, 2011)

I believe direct democracy is bad democracy.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 20, 2011)

Religion is considered a "cause." It is also considered one of the most used "causes."


----------



## Bambi (Nov 20, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> Religion is considered a "cause." It is also considered one of the most used "causes."


1. A cause among many.

2. Yes, one of the most used causes when bashing someones personal choice in invisible friend. 

Why am I even making this a discussion? Big deal. I need a break. @Sparrowkin: Sorry!


----------



## greg-the-fox (Nov 20, 2011)

Conker said:


> I believe hangovers serve an important function, even though I have a terrible one right now and hate the fact that they exist.
> 
> But, they usually keep me from drinking too much, and if they didn't exist people would probably be piss drunk all the time. Or, those that have problems controlling themselves or those that are irresponsible (some of my friends)



I'm immune to hangovers and I don't get drunk all the time :V I usually just have 1 or 2 drinks
Binge drinking lost its appeal once I could drink legally, I'll only do it at parties and stuff, and I'm not the type of person who goes to parties very often...


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Nov 20, 2011)

I believe:


As you have your right to an opinion, I have my right to tell you that you are wrong
God is the name we give to the natural forces around us and the unseen workings of the universe; likewise, religion is the institution that people use to get others to view the world the way that they do, usually to their benefit
Scientific laws are very general and are more akin to a Cliff's Notes version of reality
The world is going to Hell in a hand-basket because people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions
Curse words are no different from any other word, and should be treated as such... within reason of course
If you can't navigate your filesystem, you shouldn't be allowed to own a computer
[insert ubiquitous quip about the fandom for extra impact] :V


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 20, 2011)

Aww Bambi.... thank you for the Sorry.

Meh, I don't mind people having a choice in invisible friend... it is when this invisible friend causes mass hysterias and they brush that off as nothing is when I get a little irked. 

That is most likely because of childhood traumas associated with religion.

But bah, I need more crazy thought processes from you all! Keep them coming!


----------



## Wyldfyre (Nov 20, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> Holy irony, Batman!
> Well okay, it's kind of a stretch :T
> But both are rooted in superstition and preying on people's gullibility


Religion is more indoctrination than belief and has it's base in purely human sources. And as previously mentioned, has ultimately lead to more deaths, trauma, suppression, segregation and persecution than providing much good. Any religious person can take responsibility for good deeds, but as soon as something bad happens, it's "I was following my religion". It is a huge catalyst for violence and when not directly the instigator, is usually the excuse.

Spiritualism is a philosophy, not a religion. There's no "holy scriptures" or a set template of what you have to believe or do. I don't attend graveyard seances or practice necromancy or some shit like that. When was the last time spiritualism caused even a fraction of the suffering religion has? There's also a reason nobody outside my friends and close family know my spiritual beliefs in full, and that's because I don't spout it everywhere when I get the chance. I don't try to get people to believe in what I do simply because I think they should.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 20, 2011)

Ummm... Wyldfire... your first bullet-point specifically says Religion.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Nov 20, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> Ummm... Wyldfire... your first bullet-point specifically says Religion.


Yes...
And?



Attaman said:


> Er, what exactly are you saying here? That only  humans kill? That only Humans kill unjustifiably? That only kills by  humans are overkill / unjustifiable?


I'm saying, in my belief,  that nobody has the right to take the life of another. You didn't create  the life, you don't have the right to take it. When it comes to self  defence, if you have the power to kill, you have the power to  incapacitate with non-fatal force in most circumstances. Don't even get  me started on the military.

As for the specific mention of  humans, I just knew someone would bring up the "but animals kill, why  can't we?". The answer lies in instinct. I'll get onto the argument  about killing for food in the next paragraph. As for hunting, "sport"  and the like, we know better. If you're not a criminal, wanted or  arrested by law enforcement, that obviously means that you have at least  some control over your instincts. Obviously, when comparing human and  animal conscience, it becomes a grey area but instincts are universal  and if you can't control those instincts for the sake of respect of  another life, you probably don't deserve the title of human.



Attaman said:


> Hope you like your brain decaying early and your children malnourished


I've  lived 19 years without touching either with no problems. I've also had  the "brain decay" argument thrown at me so many times, it's getting old.  All I'm saying is we'll see who's the last one standing. If I'm wrong,  then I'm wrong. Big fucking deal, doesn't matter. I made the choice, I'm  living with it.
Oh, and I'm not having kids.



Attaman said:


> Haha, what? You think society should be scrapped? What, pray tell, do we replace it with? Mind, there is a _very_  noticeable irony in the assumptions made toward humanity above, but  then going "Oh and the thing that obviously separates us from animals is  bad".


I get sick and tired of the whole "WELL WHY DON'T YOU  THINK OF SOMETHING BETTER" that gets thrown in my face time and time  again. I'm only pointing out what isn't working well, I'm not a messiah.  
I don't even get the second part of that.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 20, 2011)

What Attaman was saying with the second part is that SOCIETY is the one thing that separates us from being animals.

And by all means, tell me what is so bad about the military. What is so bad that we need to get rid of the thing protecting us from being overtaken and slaughtered.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Is it only me or has history proven that only 'liberals' can hold a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility? Just look at the budgets of 'fiscal conservatives' in the US; they obviously only know (or care) how to phuck it up.
> 
> There is an amusing picture to demonstrate this.


I'd like to see an updated version of that picture that includes Obama.

When you quoted me, you highlighted the sentence where I said many mainstream Democrats are addicted to spending, but you somehow entirely missed the sentence where I explicitly said that neither Bush or like-minded Republicans are actually fiscal conservatives (regardless of what they claim.)  Reagan was a fiscal conservative who lost several critical fights with Congress, so while he got his tax cuts through, he didn't get the cost cutting measures he was promised.  That's why he ended up with a major deficit problem that plagued his entire presidency.

Bush I and Bush II were hardly fiscal conservatives.  They were social conservatives who never saw a spending bill they didn't like.  Bush II backed the abysmal failure that was TARP, which was nothing more than a $2500 giveaway from every man, woman and child to the very people who caused the recession we're in now.  TARP did little or nothing to calm the markets or prevent the recession, but it blew a giant gaping hole in the federal budget.  No fiscal conservative would back something like that.  The fact that McCain also backed it and had the gall to call himself a fiscal conservative made me throw up a little in my mouth.  I wasn't the only one thinking that, too.  He was in the lead in the polls prior to the TARP bailout.  He trailed afterward, and Obama sailed to easy victory and for good reason: if the Republican candidate votes like a fiscal liberal but calls himself a fiscal conservative, then how can we trust anything he says?

Likewise, Clinton was hardly a fiscal liberal.  He fought to get the line-item veto through Congress (which was unfortunately struck down by the courts) and he struck a deal with Gingrich to overhaul the welfare system, which not only put millions of people to work but also cut billions out of the federal budget.  That wasn't the sole reason we had a massive budget surplus (the dot-com boom was the driving force there) but it certainly helped.  I'd happily vote for another so-called "liberal" like Clinton over an actual liberal like Obama, or a fake "fiscal conservative" like McCain.

Gingrich, for all his glaring faults, is the only Republican in the field who can honestly claim to be a fiscal conservative because he's the only Republican in the field who fought to balance the budget and actually did it.   The only reason I'm not backing him is that he has many, many skeletons in the closest and he seems to like pissing off independents.  I like his stance on fiscal issues, but not his stance on social matters, and more importantly: I don't see how he can beat Obama.  I like Romney because I think he's a more balanced candidate who can possibly beat Obama, but he's no fiscal conservative.   That said, he does have a better track record of cost cutting than Bush ever did and he's not a lying, backstabbing bastard like McCain was.  I don't know how to classify Cain and Ron Paul. Cain's 9-9-9 plan is simply ludicrous and all but guarantees another Great Depression.  Ron Paul wants to trim the size of government down to next to nothing, but I don't know that his tax plan would come close balancing the books.


----------



## TraceGrey (Nov 20, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Lets say a little more;
> 
> - People who use drugs to feel better or whatever, they are a weak individual.  Same goes to alcohol.
> - Rap is the worst thing to happen to the music world.
> ...


These, and...

- People aren't 'random'; they're just stupid. ((Talking about little 14 year old girls who say, "Oh I'm so funny and random, haha." Ugg, shoot me.))
- Boobs are NOT attractive. If I wanted big lumps of blubber flying around in my face I'd go hug a walrus. 
- I hate babies. ((Not really a belief, but whatever.))
- Scene kids are stupid. Just...stupid. -_-
- Sometimes being quiet is really the best way to go. Opening your mouth is not always necessary. 
- Anyone who likes NASCAR needs to go jump in an CO2 filled ditch and burn themselves. ((I don't care if that's possible or not.))
- Stupid people are stupid. Not funny, not smart; stupid. So are lazy people.
- Excuses are for wimps.

More will probably come later.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 20, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> - Unless forced to; taking pain-killers, shows weakness.


Huh. Commie Bat, you've been a favorite poster of mine for a long time despite a few major ideological differences, but I must admit I scowled at this. I've mentioned my disease a number of times on this site; I have an inherited connective tissue disorder, which causes pain in all of my major joints and quite a few of the minor ones. Due to the structural problems with my joints, the pain sometimes spreads to muscle/ligament or nerve pain. (For example, I have sciatic nerve pain as a result of an overly flexible spine.) Always, every day. Sometimes just soreness and sometimes quite severe, but always, every day. Every night as well; I have trouble sleeping for it. 

Technically I'm not "forced" to take painkillers. It's not an issue of surgical safety and I can still get around without them. But my quality of life plummets. Back when I refused to take painkillers, anything resembling happiness or even contentedness was hid behind a haze of pain, and I had constant struggles with depression/anger issues/insomnia. Does getting away from that make me so weak, to you? I assume you do not struggle with severe chronic pain. I implore you to check your privilege.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 20, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> - At times suicide is "natural selection"


Natural selection has more to do with what genes are available in a basic environment than it does who, or what, gets killed off. Suicide than to me is much more a matter of self-esteem, depression, and what's so threatening to the individual contemplating it that they would require thinking about it in the first place.


Commie Bat said:


> - Guns aren't dangerous; people are.


I'd almost say self-immersion in a sub-culture that has an abnormally strong interest in violence and the social theory of Darwinism is much, much more dangerous indeed. Again, one of the two things that linked most shooters, sociopaths, and violent maniacs in human history together were: depression, and no healthy means of knowing what was causing it.


----------



## Ley (Nov 20, 2011)

This makes people raise brows whenever I say it..


Death Sentence. 100%. For those who murder, and those who steal the innocence of children.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 20, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> I'm saying, in my belief,  that nobody has the right to take the life of another.


Except for everything non-human, which you gave a free pass. Including Dolphins, nature's little rapists / murderers. 



Wyldfyre said:


> You didn't create  the life, you don't have the right to take it.


So only one's parents / grandparents / so-on can kill you?

Also, again, glad you have this standard only for humans, and as an absolute regardless of circumstance.



Wyldfyre said:


> As for the specific mention of  humans, I just knew someone would bring up the "but animals kill, why  can't we?". The answer lies in instinct.


 You call me on a "bullshit" excuse later in your post, but then use _the most common cop-out for why animals murdering animals / people is not bad_? Furthermore, the most cliche excuse that is _hilariously false_? 

But fine, let's go this route. Alright, humans are bad because we kill things outside instinct. But... then humans are the only being with potential for good, as any "good" by an animal is instinct. Ball's in your court, bucko, but I imagine you're going to whinge something about how it's not instinct to rush into a burning bush to save kits, ergo animals have only instinctual evil but are still capable of moral goodness.



Wyldfyre said:


> If you're not a criminal, wanted or  arrested by law enforcement, that obviously means that you have at least  some control over your instincts.


And in this post, Wyldfire implies that most people who kill other people are not wanted by law enforcement for such actions. 

Wyldfire, don't go through with the debate. Just admit it, "My belief that would appall others is I'm a misanthrope". It's simple, and invites much less painful debate.



Wyldfyre said:


> Obviously, when comparing human and  animal conscience, it becomes a grey area but instincts are universal  and if you can't control those instincts for the sake of respect of  another life, you probably don't deserve the title of human.


 I take the above back. You don't hate humans, because no-one would meet your standard of human. Fuck, someone who innocently swats at a fly / mosquito breaks the rule you just gave and thus "doe(s)n't deserve the title of human".



Wyldfyre said:


> I've  lived 19 years without touching either with no problems. I've also had  the "brain decay" argument thrown at me so many times, it's getting old.


 Just because it's factual doesn't mean you can wing it with "it's getting old". The brain requires a great deal of nutrients that, naturally, would only be acquired by eating meat. You can wing it with non-meat products, but if you don't supplement with vitamins or specifically-created foods (tofu, for one example), you're statistically more likely to suffer damage to specific parts of the brain due to malnutrition. Similarly with milk, but in this case toward bones as opposed to the brain. 



Wyldfyre said:


> All I'm saying is we'll see who's the last one standing. If I'm wrong,  then I'm wrong. Big fucking deal, doesn't matter. I made the choice, I'm  living with it.


 But if you're right, I have a hunch you plan on spending every moment shoving it in my next-of-kin's faces.



Wyldfyre said:


> I get sick and tired of the whole "WELL WHY DON'T YOU  THINK OF SOMETHING BETTER" that gets thrown in my face time and time  again.


 You said you want to destroy society. _You better damn well have something better planned as otherwise congratulations fuck-nugget, you just committed a slow genocide on 6.7 billion people_. For one who puts so much value on life, you seem to have no qualms about damning thousands of millions of people without a second thought or consideration.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 20, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> snip


Dammit dude, why you gotta be so reasonable, I can't stay mad at you. I understand; probably should have realize it was just a word choice thing in the first place. All's well.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 20, 2011)

Azure said:


> Conversely, I think culture has become mostly irrelevant in this day and age, given globalization, the homogenization of entire nations, and the fact that most of it is the dregs from useless, intolerably stupid societies. But I think that culture being any kind of defining force in morals is dumb to begin with, so I'm clearly biased.
> 
> EDIT- Also philosophy. Almost utterly useless. Except medical ethics.



When is it O.K to kill? To steal? 

What makes one life worth more than another? Is it objective, or just a matter of perspective? What is the role of government? Of religion? 

Who has authority, how much, and why? 

What is the meaning of life? Why don't we throw ourselves off cliffs and save the effort? 



If you have an answer for *any* of those, you have a personal philosophy.



TraceGrey said:


> - Anyone who likes NASCAR needs to go jump in an CO2 filled ditch and  burn themselves. ((I don't care if that's possible or not.))



If there were a list of places where you couldn't burn yourself, a CO2-filled ditch would come right after "space" and "the ocean."


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I believe direct democracy is bad democracy.


Direct democracy is a bad idea, but so is pure blood democracy, pure blood socialism, pure blood communism, pure blood dictatorships, pure blood any sort of government is a bad idea.

It's better to have a hybrid government than a pure government.  What's sad to me is the fact people still think america is a pure democracy.



I think the major power congressman should have is electing officials who jobs it would be to make laws.  Like a state's laws would be determined by a appointed judge or official who's job it would be to run the state, but any decision or anything no matter how small can be sharpied out of the bill with a federally appointed judge.  Instead of a senate, it would be a high council.
So it'd be-
congressman appoints
 I
V
appointed official proposes bill
I
V<-judge appointed by high council member
I
V
If it's on the state level it becomes law, if not proceed further down
I
V<-federally appointed judge that is appointed by federal official<-federal official<-president
I
V
law

Which is pretty damn close to how it is now, except instead of moneywhores I mean congressman making laws it'd be appointed people who would legally have to have some level of credentials.


Also that the government can not give exceptions to equality, if no equality for all then that's not equality.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> - As much as it hurts to say this; war is sometimes necessary.


When it fits your interests, am I right? :I



Telnac said:


> I'd like to see an updated version of that picture that includes Obama.


Here is the projected budget.



> When you quoted me, you highlighted the sentence where I said many mainstream Democrats are addicted to spending, but you somehow entirely missed the sentence where I explicitly said that neither Bush or like-minded Republicans are actually fiscal conservatives (regardless of what they claim.)  Reagan was a fiscal conservative who lost several critical fights with Congress, so while he got his tax cuts through, he didn't get the cost cutting measures he was promised.  That's why he ended up with a major deficit problem that plagued his entire presidency.


And that is why I consider him a monster on one hand and a failure on another. Obviously there is a revenue problem, not spending one.

 I am curious to know what do you mean by fiscal conservative. It doesn't matter if it's balanced as long as it is as small as possible? Boils my blood as much.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> How does if fit my interests, let alone anyone's, for that matter?


How the hell should I know? I'm not a warmonger like you, sweetheart.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> If you don't know, why ask in the first place?


Because I love to learn?


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Nov 21, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Anarchy is retarded, it always leads to a more strict ruling.
> I bet you would be one of those people who scream out ANARCHY! FUCK YEA! Then get robbed and go "HEY WHERE ARE THE POLICE IVE BEEN ROBBED." Or you could be like "OMG IVE BEEN STABBED SOMEONE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" Anarchy bro... You mad?



I probably mad bro, considering that in a real anarchic situation I would die from not having certain medications. But on principle, I say yea. As for your other point, if it reach that point, I say all bets off anyways. 

So yeah, I mad bro. Problem DD?


----------



## Telnac (Nov 21, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Here is the projected budget.
> 
> And that is why I consider him a monster on one hand and a failure on another. Obviously there is a revenue problem, not spending one.
> 
> I am curious to know what do you mean by fiscal conservative. It doesn't matter if it's balanced as long as it is as small as possible? Boils my blood as much.


Hrm... June of 2009?  Unfortunately, not very recent.  I found one for June 2011, which has two scenarios listed: one where we get serious about debt reduction, and another where we don't.  Needless to say, the budget projections for the scenario where we don't get serious about debt reduction is downright scary.

My definition of a fiscal conservative is someone who believes that government should provide essential services and provide for national defense.  There is some room for discretionary spending for things like NASA and scientific research, so long as a case can be made that they provide a tangible benefit for Americans in particular and possibly even Mankind in general.  (It's not hard to see that a vast majority of scientific research & NASA's activities do that.)  So no, I don't believe in making government as small as possible.  I believe in making government as small as practical.

A safety net to help people get back on their feet in hard economic times is clearly necessary, as are things such as Social Security (although I believe it needs to be updated to reflect the fact that Americans live longer and more productive lives than they did in the 1930s.)  What isn't necessary is attempts to turn the safety net into a hammock.  Neither is it necessary for government to be spending billions on giveaways for special interest groups.  Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of that sin, but Obama seems to almost perverse in the amount he does this.  A lot of the "stimulus" package was nothing more than giveaways to special interest groups, and TARP was probably the worst example of them all (something supported by Bush, McCain and Obama alike.)

At least Obama's honest about what his intentions are: spend money like there's no tomorrow.  Republicans like Bush and McCain who claim to be fiscal conservatives but who do the exact same thing make me sick.

As for the revenue side of things: I agree!  We need to cut spending AND raise taxes.  But we need to tax the ACTUAL rich, those with total assets in excess of $1mil, rather than high income earners.  And yes, there's a HUGE difference between the two!  A highly educated engineering professional who is saddled with student loan debt but who makes $200k per year is not rich, but the trust fund baby who has little or no debt but gets $200k in an annuity from his $10million estate is.  Yet both are taxed at the same rate because our stupid tax codes were written by people on Capital Hill (Republicans and Democrats alike) who have multi-million dollar estates but a modest annual income.  (Actually, the trust fund baby probably pays far LESS in taxes if his annuity comes from long-term investments.)  They want to tax people like the engineering professional who are trying to become rich, but they have tax shelters for people like themselves who actually are rich.

The real solution is to start taxing the estate itself.  Until we do that, our tax code will always punish the middle class more than it hurts anyone else.  Even if the top rate was 100%, it won't affect people who've already managed to climb to the top.  It'll only serve to prevent anyone else from getting there.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm sorry, but you're just too narrow minded to argue with. Trust me, I've been through so many people like you, nothing in your posts are new to me and these discussions always end up the same.

If you'd like to seriously discuss my beliefs without insulting me, making it obnoxiously apparent that you don't like me and misreading my posts, I'm right here.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I was afraid what I've said may not have come off properly; I have tendency for that to happen.  I meant for minor pain, such as aches, head aches, and cramps.  As those generally can be reduced or eliminated, instead of reaching for tylenol. (or whatever else people use)



Just going to point out that migraines shouldn't be included as headaches, and painkillers are definitely a necessity on that one     As for cramps, well, sometimes I get them so badly that I need a tylenol just to keep upright.  There can be complications like endometriosis or ovarian cysts that will cause the pain to be more severe to the point of unbearable.  

Minor pain though...yeah, don't do it.  You're doing your body more harm by taking a painkiller instead of using a ice pack/ hot water bottle.


----------



## cad (Nov 21, 2011)

- There's no such thing as "real" music or "fake" music, as some people label certain genres of music. Music is music. Just because you hate this kind of music and love that kind of music doesn't make it any more or less music. People who uses these terms are ignorant.

- I don't believe people who say that they enjoy all kinds of music, unless they got some proof, i.e. a number of artists, and general understanding of different genres of music they enjoy, to back up that point of theirs.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 21, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> I'm saying, in my belief,  that nobody has the right to take the life of another. You didn't create  the life, you don't have the right to take it. *When it comes to self  defence, if you have the power to kill, you have the power to  incapacitate with non-fatal force in most circumstances.*



Not really. Shooting to wound only happens in Hollywood, and if someone's coming at you with a pistol, a tazer is often just not going to cut it.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 21, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> I'm sorry, but you're just too narrow minded to argue with. Trust me, I've been through so many people like you, nothing in your posts are new to me and these discussions always end up the same.
> 
> If you'd like to seriously discuss my beliefs without insulting me, making it obnoxiously apparent that you don't like me and misreading my posts, I'm right here.




It appears to me that you just don't like what Attaman is saying, and that is why you are calling him narrow-minded. You seem to call everyone narrow-minded if they did not agree with _you._ 

Have you ever taken the time to think that maybe you hear the same things over and over when you argue because those things have basis in actual facts that you are denying? It seems that you probably have not, considering you are just blowing off what anyone says in order to continue your ways of thought and believe yourself to be right over everyone else. You don't seem to be receptive nor accepting of others' opinions. 

Please, get out of your bubble. Thanks.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Nov 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Direct democracy is a bad idea, but so is pure blood democracy, pure blood socialism, pure blood communism, pure blood dictatorships, pure blood any sort of government is a bad idea.
> 
> It's better to have a hybrid government than a pure government.  What's sad to me is the fact people still think america is a pure democracy.
> 
> ...



Like a professor of law perhaps?  I'd give them more trust than a "politician".


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Nov 21, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> I'm sorry, but you're just too narrow minded to argue with. Trust me, I've been through so many people like you, nothing in your posts are new to me and these discussions always end up the same.
> 
> If you'd like to seriously discuss my beliefs without insulting me, making it obnoxiously apparent that you don't like me and misreading my posts, I'm right here.



I knew there was something that there was something I was forgetting in my original list:

I believe that meat is fucking delicious.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 21, 2011)

I believe that 'time travel' is impossible, but I would _relish_ the opportunity to kill Descartes.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 21, 2011)

Viscra Maelstrom said:


> - There's no such thing as "real" music or "fake" music, as some people label certain genres of music. Music is music. Just because you hate this kind of music and love that kind of music doesn't make it any more or less music. People who uses these terms are ignorant.


Freaking agreed. And on that note...

-Juggalos are fun to hang out with and they aren't so bad.
-I'm one of those drug legalization people. Yeah I hate meth and coke too, but there are natural occurring plants that you can abuse that are just as harmful so it seems kind of retarded to regulate it. Plus everyone is addicted to caffeine. I'd rather things in general be mostly legal or decriminalized with the focus on sending those who abuse the very harmful drugs (meth, coke, etc) to rehab 
-I think it would be worth it for a lot of people to use psychedelic drugs, particularly mushrooms. I think they should be used to treat depression. (WITH CONSTANT SUPERVISION, mind you.)


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 21, 2011)

I believe that we should work on saving literature rather than upgrade to techonology and have someone say "Whats a book?.
I believe that we should stay out of other countries buisness and not get involved in something that doesnt concern us.
I believe that we should all be prepared for a zombie apocalyspe.
I believe that Kansas City Chiefs will win the Super Bowl in the next 3 years.


----------



## Jaded Cherret (Nov 21, 2011)

I believe that the loudest people in a group/movement are always the ones with the least intelligence and will always end up damaging their own 'cause'.
I believe that college is a MASSIVE waste of time, depending on what area you're going into.
I believe that most people who say "I want to be a game-designer!" are complete idiots who know nothing of the actual industry and what it would take to actually get a job as such.
I believe that any college that offers a degree in "Game Design" is simply cashing-in on the aforementioned idiots.
I believe that every single person should be forced to work a year in retail, and a year in food-service, no matter how well-off they are in life.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 21, 2011)

I believe world would be a better place if people were vegetarians.



Telnac said:


> A safety net to help people get back on their feet in hard economic times is clearly necessary, as are things such as Social Security (although I believe it needs to be updated to reflect the fact that Americans live longer and more productive lives than they did in the 1930s.)  What isn't necessary is attempts to turn the safety net into a hammock.  Neither is it necessary for government to be spending billions on giveaways for special interest groups.  Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of that sin, but Obama seems to almost perverse in the amount he does this.  A lot of the "stimulus" package was nothing more than giveaways to special interest groups, and TARP was probably the worst example of them all (something supported by Bush, McCain and Obama alike.)
> 
> At least Obama's honest about what his intentions are: spend money like there's no tomorrow.  Republicans like Bush and McCain who claim to be fiscal conservatives but who do the exact same thing make me sick.


I cannot understand this kind of thinking. To be honest, I have never even heard of any domestic politician (well, apart from non-representive, party youth-wing USA-fanboys) to advocate against government spending for a _reason in itself_.

Where would do you draw a line between an extensive social safety net and a 'hammock'?



> A highly educated engineering professional who is saddled with student loan debt but who makes *$200k per year* is not rich...


Yeah, right. -.-


----------



## Wyldfyre (Nov 21, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> It appears to me that you just don't like what Attaman is saying, and that is why you are calling him narrow-minded. You seem to call everyone narrow-minded if they did not agree with _you._
> 
> Have you ever taken the time to think that maybe you hear the same things over and over when you argue because those things have basis in actual facts that you are denying? It seems that you probably have not, considering you are just blowing off what anyone says in order to continue your ways of thought and believe yourself to be right over everyone else. You don't seem to be receptive nor accepting of others' opinions.
> 
> Please, get out of your bubble. Thanks.


I have points against everything he's saying. He's just not paying attention to exactly what I'm saying so I'm not going to bother. I've been the the same thing with people all over the place for years.
Those so called "facts" I've refuted in many places before, including from personal experience. I'll gladly debate other people's opinions in a civilised manner when they can debate mine without flaming, insulting and understanding exactly what the fuck I'm saying instead of putting words in my mouth.

Please, don't call yourself a psychologist.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 21, 2011)

Telnac said:


> At least Obama's honest about what his intentions are: spend money like there's no tomorrow.  Republicans like Bush and McCain who claim to be fiscal conservatives but who do the exact same thing make me sick.
> 
> As for the revenue side of things: I agree!  We need to cut spending AND raise taxes.



You want to cut spending during a recession driven by a lack of demand? Lowering spending further lowers demand, which leads to further losses in jobs, and then to losses in tax revenue. You end up in a contractionary death spiral that would leave a large(r) portion of the country facing poverty due to long-term unemployment.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 21, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> Those so called "facts" I've refuted in many places before, including from personal experience.


I'm glad to hear your anecdotal evidence overcomes a scientific study in terms of validity. 

And... that's the only point I can read from your post that you have any point in attempting to refute. Your first few points are all relative / opinion, and heavily biased opinions at that (something which you are calling me out on). For example, you assume the existence of natural rights, and that said natural rights apply to everything. If you mean to refute "no-one lives up to your standards" bit with slapping insects: They are _living beings too_, unless you make exceptions (in which case, you need to change your argument as you argued any living being. However, I imagine having to redefine what is good and what is bad is not something you want to do).

My comment on animals neither being moral or immoral is _the only proper conclusion one can make when saying animals are driven purely via instinct_. Unless you've got a study on hand that handily proves that all acts of evil are purely instinctual, and that there's a clear link between good and instinct being distinct concepts, all one can do is admit that if humans are the only beings (on this planet) who gets flak for killing others, then humans are also the only beings (on this planet) that can be considered benevolent. Just as how you're not innately evil if you instinctually love to rape and murder (hence why Dolphins are not considered worse than humans), you are not innately good if you instinctually share with your kin.

In regard to "not a wanted criminal", you imply that there's minimal difference between someone who is an unlawful killer of humans, and a recreational hunter (actually, you don't even specify recreational in that post). You then also imply that many people who get their jollies rocked by killing do not have any sort of mental issues, such as sociopathy or the sort, by stating that the only way you would have no control over yourself is if a criminal, wanted by cops, or already arrested by such.

And I'm also waiting for a refutal of how crashing society down in its entirety - nay, removing the concept from humanity - will _not_ cause the world to collapse in short order. Especially since you have not proposed any sort of alternative, which means logically what would follow up is what comes naturally (and you've already admitted that naturally many animals are quite willing to be vicious bastards for survival, and have just removed one of the key factors for people to do more than mindlessly obey instinct).


----------



## Wyldfyre (Nov 21, 2011)

Attaman said:


> I'm glad to hear your anecdotal evidence overcomes a scientific study in terms of validity.


Ahh, the "B12 argument". I've been told I must have a B12 deficiency because I'm vegan. Guess what? I don't. I don't even nor have ever taken supplements.
I got checked over as fine when I was in hospital and at trips to the doctor over a span of a few years. (Genetic related problems, not dietary). 



Attaman said:


> you assume the existence of natural rights, and that said natural rights apply to everything.


Where specifically did I say "natural rights apply to everything"?



Attaman said:


> My comment on animals neither being moral or immoral is _the only proper conclusion one can make when saying animals are driven purely via instinct_. Unless you've got a study on hand that handily proves that all acts of evil are purely instinctual, and that there's a clear link between good and instinct being distinct concepts, all one can do is admit that if humans are the only beings (on this planet) who gets flak for killing others, then humans are also the only beings (on this planet) that can be considered benevolent. Just as how you're not innately evil if you instinctually love to rape and murder (hence why Dolphins are not considered worse than humans), you are not innately good if you instinctually share with your kin.


Until dolphins evolve to a point where it can be said that they are a modern civilisation, they are irrelevant in comparison to humans unless arguing for the side of animals vs humans.

It is widely accepted that a love or predisposition of violating other's lives so severely as in murder and rape is regarded as someone with lack of a sane mind, and I'd agree. 



Attaman said:


> In regard to "not a wanted criminal", you imply that there's minimal difference between someone who is an unlawful killer of humans, and a recreational hunter (actually, you don't even specify recreational in that post). You then also imply that many people who get their jollies rocked by killing do not have any sort of mental issues, such as sociopathy or the sort, by stating that the only way you would have no control over yourself is if a criminal, wanted by cops, or already arrested by such.


In hindsight, it was a rather poor phrasing but I assumed you'd get the gist of my point, which you evidently didn't or just decided to pick on. Let me rephrase my point now:
I believe that any intentional killing minus within exceptional or compassionate circumstances is despicable. And nothing anyone can say will change my mind. Call me stubborn, but this thread wasn't "post your beliefs and let people pick at them".



Attaman said:


> And I'm also waiting for a refutal of how crashing society down in its entirety - nay, removing the concept from humanity - will _not_ cause the world to collapse in short order. Especially since you have not proposed any sort of alternative, which means logically what would follow up is what comes naturally (and you've already admitted that naturally many animals are quite willing to be vicious bastards for survival, and have just removed one of the key factors for people to do more than mindlessly obey instinct).


Where the fuck did you get all this?
I merely said that modern society doesn't work, in my opinion. I didn't say I wanted to kill everyone or anyone, or completely remove it without anything in place. I only stated that I don't like it because I can see so many flaws. 

This is what I was talking about when I said you misread my posts. You assume so much from so little text and then use it against me when that's not what I meant or implied at all. But you probably already knew that or you're overreacting.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 21, 2011)

Speaking of meat

I have a really hard time eating meat. I was a vegetarian for about five years before starting to raise and kill my own meat. I usually enjoy the flavor and don't have many moral qualms, but something about the texture freaks me out. Unless it's gyros or burgers or something where the texture's been compromised, I ended up choking most of it down and rush the rest of the meal to avoid getting sick.  It's very frustrating. 

Not very important but I've appalled a few culinary enthusiasts that way. (Venison tenderloin? Yeech, just a small piece please, I'll have a salad.)


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 21, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Speaking of meat
> 
> I have a really hard time eating meat. I was a vegetarian for about five years before starting to raise and kill my own meat. I usually enjoy the flavor and don't have many moral qualms, but something about the texture freaks me out. Unless it's gyros or burgers or something where the texture's been compromised, I ended up choking most of it down and rush the rest of the meal to avoid getting sick.  It's very frustrating.
> 
> Not very important but I've appalled a few culinary enthusiasts that way. (Venison tenderloin? Yeech, just a small piece please, I'll have a salad.)




Come to my house. I will make you love meat so much you will gnaw it off a living animal.


----------



## Dj_whoohoo (Nov 21, 2011)

I believe that beliefs are what people believe is to be true.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 21, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> I have points against everything he's saying. He's just not paying attention to exactly what I'm saying so I'm not going to bother. I've been the the same thing with people all over the place for years.
> Those so called "facts" I've refuted in many places before, including from personal experience. I'll gladly debate other people's opinions in a civilised manner when they can debate mine without flaming, insulting and understanding exactly what the fuck I'm saying instead of putting words in my mouth.
> 
> *Please, don't call yourself a psychologist*.




And that is not an insult? You really need to take a look at yourself, which you still have not done. You still aren't appearing to me as receptive or accepting. You are just seeming to get more and more frustrated.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 21, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> Ahh, the "B12 argument". I've been told I must have a B12 deficiency because I'm vegan. Guess what? I don't. I don't even nor have ever taken supplements.
> I got checked over as fine when I was in hospital and at trips to the doctor over a span of a few years. (Genetic related problems, not dietary).


 Again, anecdotal evidence. If you read the study, you'll even see that it wasn't "Don't eat meat insta-lose INT points", but that there were much greater odds with deficiencies. And one typically has to work extra hard as a vegan to prevent B12 deficiencies (again, assuming they don't use supplements) due to its main sources.



Wyldfyre said:


> Where specifically did I say "natural rights apply to everything"?


 Wherein killing anything was bad? Unless there's some other reason wherein you believe "People shouldn't kill animals", but then that would most probably be overcome by people killing animals for consumption / a purpose.



Wyldfyre said:


> Until dolphins evolve to a point where it can be said that they are a modern civilisation, they are irrelevant in comparison to humans unless arguing for the side of animals vs humans.


 My point ====>

[Your Head]

Dolphins were an example of an animal that quite frequently murders, rapes, and so on. The point I was making was that if you want to go this route, _*only humans can be defined as good as any benevolent act by an animal is as instinctual as their malevolent acts*_.



Wyldfyre said:


> In hindsight, it was a rather poor phrasing but I assumed you'd get the gist of my point, which you evidently didn't or just decided to pick on. Let me rephrase my point now:
> I believe that any intentional killing minus within exceptional or compassionate circumstances is despicable. And nothing anyone can say will change my mind. Call me stubborn, but this thread wasn't "post your beliefs and let people pick at them".


 If you're going to go into a thread being particularly vague (see below), don't be surprised when people are appalled by your vaguely-defined beliefs. I think you'll find no-one here is against the idea of preventing murder of fellow people, but when you take a high and mighty "Oh don't kill animuls for anything" mindset to the point that - at its logical conclusion - you yourself fail as a human being (or do you believe you have never once purposefully swatted at a fly / mosquito, would never try to remove a deer tick from your body, or so on), let alone others. 



Wyldfyre said:


> Where the fuck did you get all this?
> I merely said that modern society doesn't work,


 


Wyldfyre said:


> Society doesn't work. Its constructs were put in place for an age different to ours. We've moved on but our morals, laws and economies haven't.




So there you say you don't believe society _as a whole_ works. Furthermore, you imply you're talking of a previously established society, not a "modern" one (which has advanced noticeably, at least in the West and developed nations, over the last century). 



Wyldfyre said:


> I didn't say I wanted to kill everyone or anyone, or completely remove it without anything in place. I only stated that I don't like it because I can see so many flaws.


The above is your entire quote in the context of society. Yes, you didn't say you want to kill everyone... but that's, by default, the logical conclusion to removing society (as a whole, which again is what you state in the quote). Furthermore, you make another assumption here wherein the flaws of society are related to, well, society, as opposed to other factors (such as corruption [either personal or ideals], scarcity, instinct, etcetera).


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 21, 2011)

We'll since we're on the topic of vegetarianism, I'm a vegetarian; not cause I have any moral qualms about meant, but that it's so expensive >_<


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> We'll since we're on the topic of vegetarianism, I'm a vegetarian; not cause I have any moral qualms about meat, but that it's so expensive >_<



Nobody really likes the processed crap, anyway. That just shows discerning tastes! Real meat or none at all. XD


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 21, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Come to my house. I will make you love meat so much you will gnaw it off a living animal.


:< But sheep bellies can only handle so much delicious animal protein, your segalliness. 



Sparrowkin said:


> And that is not an insult? You really need to  take a look at yourself, which you still have not done. You still aren't  appearing to me as receptive or accepting. You are just seeming to get  more and more frustrated.


It's not really an insult. You  aren't a psychologist. You're 18. You're either just starting college or  just finishing high school; if the former, you're probably still mostly  taking gen-eds if you're even accepted into a psychology program.  You're no more a psychologist than I am a court reporter. (I'm a court  reporting student, won't be just a court reporter until I get  certified.) It's pretty disingenuous to call yourself a psychologist instead of the psychology student, as it implies a certain intellectual authority that you don't actually have. 

I have no dogs in this fight, but that's been bugging me too.


----------



## israfur (Nov 21, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Freaking agreed. And on that note...
> 
> -Juggalos are fun to hang out with and they aren't so bad.
> -I'm one of those drug legalization people. Yeah I hate meth and coke too, but there are natural occurring plants that you can abuse that are just as harmful so it seems kind of retarded to regulate it. Plus everyone is addicted to caffeine. I'd rather things in general be mostly legal or decriminalized with the focus on sending those who abuse the very harmful drugs (meth, coke, etc) to rehab
> -I think it would be worth it for a lot of people to use psychedelic drugs, particularly mushrooms. I think they should be used to treat depression. (WITH CONSTANT SUPERVISION, mind you.)



I agree with everything you mentioned.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 21, 2011)

I believe pot helps people think deeper.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 21, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You want to cut spending during a recession driven by a lack of demand? Lowering spending further lowers demand, which leads to further losses in jobs, and then to losses in tax revenue. You end up in a contractionary death spiral that would leave a large(r) portion of the country facing poverty due to long-term unemployment.



Well, I think we could probably stand to make some cuts to the amount of money we throw at the military-industrial complex to get new and useless toys like the shit-tastic Landwarrior system.  But the Republicans would scream so loud it would pierce the fucking heavens as a great beam of focused energy and destroy the moon like a Death Star laser.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 21, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Well, I think we could probably stand to make some cuts to the amount of money we throw at the military-industrial complex to get new and useless toys like the shit-tastic Landwarrior system.  But the Republicans would scream so loud it would pierce the fucking heavens as a great beam of focused energy and destroy the moon like a Death Star laser.



But even then, it would be better to redirect that money to less pointless endeavors than to remove it from the budget. Dollars spent on soldiers and hardware provide jobs and revenue just like any other form of spending, and if you simply cut them now then you'll still exacerbate the issues of revenue generation and unemployment.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 21, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> :< But sheep bellies can only handle so much delicious animal protein, your segalliness.
> 
> 
> It's not really an insult. You  aren't a psychologist. You're 18. You're either just starting college or  just finishing high school; if the former, you're probably still mostly  taking gen-eds if you're even accepted into a psychology program.  You're no more a psychologist than I am a court reporter. (I'm a court  reporting student, won't be just a court reporter until I get  certified.) It's pretty disingenuous to call yourself a psychologist instead of the psychology student, as it implies a certain intellectual authority that you don't actually have.
> ...



Meh, got a point there. And kudos on your job choice!

Though I do think that Wildfyre's comment was meant to be an insult. :/

Edit: That better? *points to species* Other than the fact that it seems to be spaced a little funny XD


----------



## Tycho (Nov 21, 2011)

Onnes said:


> But even then, it would be better to redirect that money to less pointless endeavors than to remove it from the budget. Dollars spent on soldiers and hardware provide jobs and revenue just like any other form of spending, and if you simply cut them now then you'll still exacerbate the issues of revenue generation and unemployment.



Yes, true.  They NEED to focus more cashbux on actually GETTING some of the advanced new(er) hardware to the fucking troops.  A LOT of troops have yet to receive SCARs to replace the aging M4s/M16s, for fuck's sake.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 21, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I believe world would be a better place if people were vegetarians.
> 
> I cannot understand this kind of thinking. To be honest, I have never even heard of any domestic politician (well, apart from non-representive, party youth-wing USA-fanboys) to advocate against government spending for a _reason in itself_.


You're never heard of Newt Gingrich?  </sarcasm> 

Actually, plenty of politicians talk about curtailing the scope of government, but few actually do it when elected into public office.



Lizzie said:


> Where would do you draw a line between an extensive social safety net and a 'hammock'?


I'd define it right where the Welfare Reform Act defined it (before Obama torpedoed it as one of the first things he did when he got into office): 2 years.  I'd be willing to extend it a bit for prolonged economic downturns like this one, but for normal economic times, 2 years is plenty of time to find a job & to stand on one's own feet.  Just like the Welfare Reform Act, exceptions would be made for those who are disabled or whatnot and government assistance would be provided for low income people needing child care.  But the point of it is that people should expect to need to earn a living, not have a living handed to them.  When you allow perfectly capable people to not work because they don't want do, then that puts an unnecessary drain on the economy and lowers everyone's standard of living.



Lizzie said:


> _A highly educated engineering professional who is saddled with student loan debt but who makes $200k per year is not rich...
> 
> _​Yeah, right. -.-


Uh, having been there, I can definitively say: YES, that's exactly right!  I wasn't rich, because what didn't go to Uncle Sam or to pay for my tiny 1 bedroom apartment went to pay down my student loans.  I lived like that for 5 years, making a LOT of money and watching it go toward paying off loans and barely scraping by.  During those 5 years, a tax increase on people making as much as I did would have ruined me.

After my student loans were paid off, then my net worth skyrocketed and until my divorce (and being laid off... twice), I was living quite nicely because I had a high total net worth.  It didn't crack $1mil (I wish), but it came close to $500k, and I would say I was quite well off and could easily absorb an annual estate tax of 1%.  The people I'm proposing we apply an estate tax to have twice as much net worth as I ever did.  If I could afford it when my net worth was $500k, I could certainly afford it if my net worth cracked $1mil.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Nov 21, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> Though I do think that Wildfyre's comment was meant to be an insult. :/


It wasn't. I just get irritated with the amount of people on the internet claiming to know what I'm thinking because they claim to be psychologists. Coming from someone who studied psychology in university.


----------



## israfur (Nov 21, 2011)

I don't think God is as bad a guy as most people make him out to be. _*gasp!!*_


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 21, 2011)

Lacus said:


> -I think it would be worth it for a lot of people to use psychedelic drugs, particularly mushrooms. I think they should be used to treat depression. (WITH CONSTANT SUPERVISION, mind you.)



lol wut?

Have you ever been drinking at a party?

You know That Guy?  Yes, THAT GUY.  The guy who shows up, gets wasted within the first hour of the party and spends the rest of the night in the bathroom, and someone has to supervise them to make sure they don't die?

Yeah, now change drinking with drug trips.  No one likes being the sober guy supervising That Guy.  Because That Guy is a fucking douchebag.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 21, 2011)

Wyldfyre said:


> It wasn't. I just get irritated with the amount of people on the internet claiming to know what I'm thinking because they claim to be psychologists. Coming from someone who studied psychology in university.



I am studying at university right now, too. I hate it when people try to diagnose me, so I sympathize. My dad was trying to be a psychologist and often tried to diagnose me with disorders as practice... humiliating, yes?

 I am not claiming to know what you are thinking, just forming an understanding as to what you are saying to me through the context in your writing like anyone else would in either writing or speech. If I make my own conclusions due to how you are coming off to me, I make my own conclusions. Any human in a social interaction does it, though we call that judging. I'm judging you on how you react/come off to me and reacting accordingly. I do it every day... it's how I think.

Heck, you aren't even the type of patient I would be seeing anyway if it is any consolation. (Unless you have a neurological brain disorder or have somehow obtained a lobotomy, anyway.) I want to work as a Clinical Neuropsychologist.
I don't remember bringing my aspiring profession up in posts previous to this one, anyway, but if I did show me where so I can apologize for it. If it was just in my "species" alongside my posts, you have no need to worry.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 21, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> lol wut?
> 
> Have you ever been drinking at a party?
> 
> ...


If you read anything carefully which you clearly didn't, I said to TREAT DEPRESSION. When I said constant supervision and I say it's meant to treat something, I think you should assume that I meant medical professionals would do the supervising.

And yes, most recreational psychedelic users need to have someone to supervise them to do it safely. That is exactly why it's not a good party drug and you are talking to someone who practically all they know is random things about drugs as if I'm some kind of ignorant shill about my substance abuse. :V 

Anyway if you want to know what exactly I'm talking about, read this it's the short version but I read every little detail of the full scientific journal about this is and it was incredible stuff.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 21, 2011)

That liquor stores should be in a 50 mile radius of any private college.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 21, 2011)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> That liquor stores should be in a 50 mile radius of any private college.



50 miles? Colleges should cut out the middle-men and sell liquor out of the campus bookstore.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 21, 2011)

Onnes said:


> 50 miles? Colleges should cut out the middle-men and sell liquor out of the campus bookstore.



Totally agree with you on that.
I believe in making friends.
I believe religions have no more purpose in the world.
I believe that weed is a herb, not a drug.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 21, 2011)

Lacus said:


> If you read anything carefully which you clearly didn't, I said to TREAT DEPRESSION. When I said constant supervision and I say it's meant to treat something, I think you should assume that I meant medical professionals would do the supervising.



I'd love for you to find someone legitimate in the medical field who'd recommend taking mushrooms for depression.  The side effects of long-lasting paranoia and fear caused by "supervised usage" far outweigh the benefits, as found in a 2006 Johns Hopkins University study where almost a quarter of those participating had these adverse side-effects.  You turn a depressed individual into a crazed individual with continual diminishing returns upon later doses.

And again, I'd rather think doctors/nurses would have better things to do than supervise a dude tripping on 'shrooms.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 21, 2011)

israfur said:


> I don't think God is as bad a guy as most people make him out to be. _*gasp!!*_



I don't think God is a guy as most people make him out to be

I don't think God is


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 21, 2011)

Tycho said:


> I don't think God is a guy as most people make him out to be
> 
> I don't think God is



Ever watched the movie Dogma?


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 21, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> I believe that people who think alcohol is not harmful to the body should be castrated.



It actually is harmful to the body.  The thing is...in small amounts, it isn't. Even the stuff that's considered good for you (Red Wine, for example) is good for you not because of the alcohol but because of the other stuff. In small amounts, Alcohol will not do that much. It's when you drink so much it accumulates.

This also leads me to my next thing, saying Rousseau was Wrong: Hardin was Right. 

People *will* deplete resources even when it's not in their interest to do so. Even ones that are not entirely resources. (ex, the funds businesses use for lost revenue to cover up for stuff like pirated copies, stolen goods, defective products, etc.) I honestly wish people would realize that part of the reason SOPA exists is, in fact, a response to the "Entitlement culture" and lack-of-wide-interest.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 22, 2011)

Onnes said:


> 50 miles? Colleges should cut out the middle-men and sell liquor out of the campus bookstore.


ROFL, oh wow, I'm gonna for hell for sure for laughing at that.


----------



## Pine (Nov 22, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> I believe pot helps people think deeper.



this x1000


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Nov 22, 2011)

I think Rarity is best pony.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Nov 22, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I think Rarity is best pony.



This is supposed to appall me why? Rarity is definitely best pony. 

You do this thread wrong. :v


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 22, 2011)

I believe that people are scared of natural medicines like pot and herbal remedies. 

I also believe that most minor illnesses can be cured by a healthy diet, proper exercise, and a positive mindset.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 22, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I think Rarity is best pony.



But your title

RD and Flutter are best, PEGASI ARE ALWAYS 20% COOLER


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Nov 23, 2011)

Same voice actor.


----------



## eversleep (Nov 23, 2011)

I think I'm not nearly as bad/stupid/worthless/etc. of a person as most people say I am.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 23, 2011)

I believe that no human has control over another on just opinions
I believe there is no such thing, action, position, etc. that is Good or Evil
I believe evolution does exists
I believe that everyone is there own machine and not programmed to be one
I believe government has nothing to do with natural living
I believe money shouldn't exist
I believe that there aren't any Gods/Goddesses in space
I believe there is no precise definition of Good or Evil
I believe there is an after-life
I believe that exorcism is just the world's biggest hoax in the history of mankind
I believe there isn't any fucking fountain of youth/Holy Grail
I believe that there isn't such a place of Heaven or Hell
I believe in no humanoid manifestation of any higher power
I believe that reincarnation is just as big of a hoax in the history of mankind
I believe violence should be a last resort action and not automatically the first approach


----------



## Onnes (Nov 23, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> I believe money shouldn't exist



Wait, what? You'd be hard pressed to find a society in known history that didn't at least barter goods, and bartering is highly inefficient compared to actual currency.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 23, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Wait, what? You'd be hard pressed to find a society in known history that didn't at least barter goods, and bartering is highly inefficient compared to actual currency.



Money leads to hardships in major societies and people without it struggle just to live somewhere. Without money this sort of problem wouldn't exist to begin with.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 23, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Money leads to hardships in major societies and people without it struggle just to live somewhere. Without money this sort of problem wouldn't exist to begin with.



But money is an automatic result of allowing individuals to trade goods. The only way to remove that ability is to move to some form of central planning, e.g. communism, all of which have horrendous historical success rates.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 23, 2011)

without money we are all one with the wind, air and trees! It's not that there's clear evidence of social hierarchy before money came into being.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 23, 2011)

Onnes said:


> But money is an automatic result of allowing individuals to trade goods. The only way to remove that ability is to move to some form of central planning, e.g. communism, all of which have horrendous historical success rates.



I'm not referring to the quantity of the money, I was referring to the physical entity of money.


----------



## SnowyD (Nov 23, 2011)

I believe that we may not have it all together, but together we can have it all.


And I also believe weed should be legal and alcohol should be banned.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 23, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> I'm not referring to the quantity of the money, I was referring to the physical entity of money.


Before the presence of currency in any form there was direct bartering and there was a structure in which those without would struggle. Before direct bartering there was social hierarchies in which those without the desired traits would struggle. Before this was present in homo sapiens it was present in great apes, before this was present in apes it was present in other social mammals. 

Money is not an instant mark of struggle. Money is a short cut for bartering goods, it is an equalizer more than our evolutionary traits were. For struggle of the poor to truly be removed you need to go back, far back, to a time before social groups of any kind at all.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 23, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> I'm not referring to the quantity of the money, I was referring to the physical entity of money.



So you want all our money to be stored electronically, which changes nothing, or you want to abolish currency? Currency is the natural evolution of trade, and going back to bartering would be the same thing but less efficient. Abolishing trade altogether requires central planning, most notoriously known in the form of communism.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Before the presence of currency in any form there was direct bartering and there was a structure in which those without would struggle. Before direct bartering there was social hierarchies in which those without the desired traits would struggle. Before this was present in homo sapiens it was present in great apes, before this was present in apes it was present in other social mammals.
> 
> Money is not an instant mark of struggle. Money is a short cut for bartering goods, it is an equalizer more than our evolutionary traits were. For struggle of the poor to truly be removed you need to go back, far back, to a time before social groups of any kind at all.



Then why did physical money get invented to begin with?



Onnes said:


> So you want all our money to be stored  electronically, which changes nothing, or you want to abolish currency?  Currency is the natural evolution of trade, and going back to bartering  would be the same thing but less efficient. Abolishing trade altogether  requires central planning, most notoriously known in the form of  communism.


Yes to electronically and no to currency.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 23, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Then why did physical money get invented to begin with?



Theorycrafting ahead:
-To possess a standard for trading goods. Exchange through other goods didn't exactly allow for too much fairness or a definite unit.
-Why metals? Well, I guess it's based of the importance it had for some cultures in terms of general usefulness, ease to obtain and even sacred value.
-And who knows what else.
-As far as I'm concerned, similar units that are not metals have been used in other cultures for similar reasons.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 23, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Then why did physical money get invented to begin with?



Suppose, without currency, you make wicker baskets, and you want to get apples from the guy who grows apples. If the apple dude doesn't need wicker baskets then you are screwed, because you have nothing else of value to trade directly. With currency, you exchange your goods for coinage which is then valued by everyone. Bartering without currency leads to highly inefficient chains of trades just so two parties can have something valued by both.

Wait, you just want to change to electronic money? I am now at a loss as to your logic in all senses.


----------



## Recel (Nov 23, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Then why did physical money get invented to begin with?



Because "One cow equals four ducks" wasn't precise enough, they wanted to be fair.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 23, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Suppose, without currency, you make wicker baskets, and you want to get apples from the guy who grows apples. If the apple dude doesn't need wicker baskets then you are screwed, because you have nothing else of value to trade directly. With currency, you exchange your goods for coinage which is then valued by everyone. Bartering without currency leads to highly inefficient chains of trades just so two parties can have something valued by both.
> 
> Wait, you just want to change to electronic money? I am now at a loss as to your logic in all senses.



I implied it.


----------



## Pine (Nov 23, 2011)

I believe that people with the IQ of an avocado shouldn't be allowed to use the McDonald's drive-thru.
(I've heard questions like "How many nuggets come in the 20 piece?" and "Are Iced Mochas cold?")


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 23, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Money leads to hardships in major societies and people without it struggle just to live somewhere. Without money this sort of problem wouldn't exist to begin with.



Life leads to suffering. Without life there would be no suffering. 

Do you oppose life?

EDIT: Wait, you just don't don't like physical currency? How does that make any sense? I mean I personally own right now less than 20$ worth of actual paper money. The rest of it is all numbers on servers. It doesn't seem to have changed anything so far.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 23, 2011)

Too many people don't even realize what money even is these days.  All money represents a debt owed by its issuer (the government).  Governments don't really produce or require tangible goods, so they make payments by issuing currency, which essentially makes it an IOU.  Demand for these IOUs is generated by requiring citizens to obtain ownership of and forgive portions of this debt (paying taxes) for the benefits living under the government provides.  This makes it a convenient medium of exchange amongst citizens for goods and services.  Legal tender laws also prevent disruption of this system.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Too many people don't even realize what money even is these days.  All money represents a debt owed by its issuer (the government).  Governments don't really produce or require tangible goods, so they make payments by issuing currency, which essentially makes it an IOU.  Demand for these IOUs is generated by requiring citizens to obtain ownership of and forgive portions of this debt (paying taxes) for the benefits living under the government provides.  This makes it a convenient medium of exchange amongst citizens for goods and services.  Legal tender laws also prevent disruption of this system.


that'd be pretty cool if the government didn't provide services like roads, and protection from invading forces (I mean this is the most basic sense possible. Not that we're going to be attacked or anything and there's obviously the debate for how much the military should have). Taxes are paying into a system that we all use, the same way you chip in a few dollars when everyone buys a pizza. 
The government doesn't just print money, do nothing, then make you pay taxes because it's in debt.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 23, 2011)

Apparently some people have never heard of debit cards.  :V


----------



## Azure (Nov 23, 2011)

I believe somebody should gimme 5 dollars.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 23, 2011)

Azure said:


> I believe somebody should gimme 5 dollars.



I believe I owe you five dollars.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> that'd be pretty cool if the government didn't provide services like roads, and protection from invading forces (I mean this is the most basic sense possible. Not that we're going to be attacked or anything and there's obviously the debate for how much the military should have). Taxes are paying into a system that we all use, the same way you chip in a few dollars when everyone buys a pizza.
> The government doesn't just print money, do nothing, then make you pay taxes because it's in debt.



I believe the point Lobar is making here is that modern money has no intrinsic value. Instead, it acquires its value because the state pledges to maintain it as valid legal tender, and in particular it must be used for transactions between individuals and the state. That money is usually issued by the state when it buys bonds from qualified banks--in this sense currency is a loan from the government. The value of that currency is then dependent on the health of state budget and the underlying economy. The state's spending, monetary, and tax collection policies determine how much currency is put into circulation and hence it's effective value.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 23, 2011)

I believe that despair is eternal in this world.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> that'd be pretty cool if the government didn't provide services like roads, and protection from invading forces (I mean this is the most basic sense possible. Not that we're going to be attacked or anything and there's obviously the debate for how much the military should have). Taxes are paying into a system that we all use, the same way you chip in a few dollars when everyone buys a pizza.
> The government doesn't just print money, do nothing, then make you pay taxes because it's in debt.



This is all mostly correct, though you seem to be stating it as a counterargument, when it's not in conflict with anything in my post.  The only thing that's off, and it's really a fine detail, is that we don't pay taxes into the government for the benefits it provides so much as we forgive government debt we own for benefits that have already been provided.  Governments provide all sorts of benefits, but generally not things that it could realistically barter with its citizens for, plus it needs something to pay workers to provide those benefits in the first place.  That's the origin of currency, the government issues IOUs in exchange for what it needs to provide all its benefits, and then accepts those IOUs back as taxes for those benefits.  Those IOUs are then effectively cancelled out, since they represent a debt owed by the government to itself.

That constant demand for government currency to be cancelled out as taxes is also what gives the currency stability and value as a medium of exchange, otherwise, the libertarian "hot potato" model of sovereign ("fiat") currency, where it only has value because everyone agrees it has value and the final acceptor of it before that suddenly changes is left holding the bag,  becomes valid (as is the case for gold and silver, humorously enough).  It can also be extrapolated from this that going overboard with slashing taxes in the name of "austerity" can actually weaken and destabilize the dollar.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Life leads to suffering. Without life there would be no suffering.
> 
> Do you oppose life?
> 
> EDIT: Wait, you just don't like physical currency? How does that make any sense? I mean I personally own right now less than 20$ worth of actual paper money. The rest of it is all numbers on servers. It doesn't seem to have changed anything so far.



I do to a certain extent. Life shouldn't be given to those who aren't worth keeping alive.

Money is now on plastic or on the web, why would we need metal or paper money which in fact takes _money_ to produce the thing. If money went digital, bar-code, or just plastic it would save a lot and it'll be good for the environment; less need to cut down trees.


----------



## Elim Garak (Nov 23, 2011)

Reeducation camps for criminals(In good condition, not extermination camps/poverty camps).
Repeat offender, cut off all government benefits.
When immigrating, show that you know the language enough to help yourself, and understanding culture(with classes given by the government, Like they do in the netherlands before you become a citizen).
Do not follow major laws such as stealing, murder etc and immigrated after getting out of jail the first time? Get kicked out.
Denial of access to country if war criminal/known terrorist.
Eastern block should be reunited.
Put politicians failing to form government(for 528 days and counting) on minimum wage.
Repeat bullies should be punished by the state.
Capitalism is retarded, so is total abolishment of private property.
Aliens exist, just nowhere close to us.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 23, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Money is now on plastic or on the web, why would we need metal or paper money which in fact takes _money_ to produce the thing. If money went digital, bar-code, or just plastic it would save a lot and it'll be good for the environment; less need to cut down trees.



If someone hands you a credit or debit card, do you have the capability to withdraw or deposit money on it? The answer is probably no, since you'd need a card reader and the appropriate service contract. Physical money is only going to go away when everyone has their own cellphone or other such device with NFC capabilities, and that stuff isn't cheap.



			
				Caroline Dax said:
			
		

> Reeducation camps for criminals(In good condition, not extermination camps/poverty camps).



I think what you mean is rehabilitation for criminals. Reeducation camps are pretty specifically about torturing and outright killing political dissidents.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 23, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> I do to a certain extent. Life shouldn't be given to those who aren't worth keeping alive.
> 
> Money is now on plastic or on the web, why would we need metal or paper money which in fact takes _money_ to produce the thing. If money went digital, bar-code, or just plastic it would save a lot and it'll be good for the environment; less need to cut down trees.



The amount of money it takes to produce coin or paper money is laughable in the grand scheme of things. Pennies and nickles are kind of obsolete, but really it's not that much. 

Plus, think about it. Friend asks if he can borrow $10, which is easier? Giving him a slip of paper, or going to my computer and making a paypal transaction?


----------



## Namba (Nov 23, 2011)

I believe someone can be alone and content to be so.


----------



## Fenrari (Nov 23, 2011)

Hm lets see....

* As stupid as it may sounds, I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid as any other theistic invisible entity in the air. (Which is why I follow the Church of FSM.) And if you bitch about it with me, I'll note how FSM doesn't profit off of people's deaths like Scientology, and tell you to redirect your animosity in that direction.

* I don't really understand why sex scandals keep getting on the news. Why the fuck would I care if celebrity X made a new sex tape? Don't they all? Half of them are really shitty quality anyway. As long as it's not illegal (I.e. minors, murder, etc.), why should I or the public give a shit?

* I believe that people should marry another legally consenting person who is at least 16 years of age, no matter race/heritage/orientation/gender/many other labels. If 2 people really love each other, a label such as marriage really won't stop 2 people from getting together. At least the federal government should recognize and give benefits to these people. 

* I believe everyone tells lies and is wearing a mask. I've yet to meet a single person that doesn't fit this criterion. House was right. No one tells the full truth. There's not enough for anyone to gain from it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 24, 2011)

I believe the best way to keep crazy 'shoot first' gun nuts in check is a few trustworthy volunteers armed with automatic weapons.


----------



## Cocobanana (Nov 24, 2011)

I believe that the death penalty is wrong, and that there's nothing solved with violence that can't be solved with diplomacy. The whole reason violence exists in the world is because people stop using their head to fix their problems and resort to the much easier and faster method of shutting others up to prevent the problems from being verbalized. Which is wrong.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 24, 2011)

I believe that first offense drug offenders should be sent to rehab, second offense rehab and afterwards have to pay the bill over a long time frame, third offense rehab and paying the bill and the court fees over a long time frame.  Fourth and after offenses then prison term not to exceed one year and that employers can't discriminate against someone's past history, except pedophiles trying to become teachers, other than that if a employer is digging up someone's past through illegal channels it should be a felony.  Drug lords should be send to prison, not addicts.

That politicians who do insider trading should be sent to prison and be banned from holding political offices.

I also believe that there should be reasonable prison term limits.

That congressional terms should be extending so that congressional elections are always held on presidential elections, politicians tend to make more laws towards their re-elections to try and convince the voters they have actually been doing their job.

Congress shouldn't have power over the budget, the failure of the budget committee only goes to show they don't know what the hell they are doing.

We should hold direct elections, in the long term it would lead to single platform parties like in other countries.  It's not a bad thing cause in america in politics it has become, "us vs them" mentality in politics.

Congress should be reduced in size by alot, to many people getting paid to fuck up the country.  If they're going to fuck up the country then we shouldn't be paying for that number of fuck ups.
If I had my way the house would only consist of 100, and at bare minimum 1 seat per state, it'd give greater voice to smaller states.  The senate should be replaced by a high council of 10, representing each of the judicial circuits.  Like texas would have one high council, the west coast one, the south one, well you get the idea.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 24, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Congress shouldn't have power over the budget, the failure of the budget committee only goes to show they don't know what the hell they are doing.
> 
> We should hold direct elections, in the long term it would lead to single platform parties like in other countries.  It's not a bad thing cause in america in politics it has become, "us vs them" mentality in politics.


Well, the Super Committee was all but designed to fail.  It was just another way that spineless politicians from both sides could kick the can down the road some more & point fingers of blame at each other.

As for direct elections, that wouldn't result in single-issue parties like they have in Europe.  The reason we have a 2 party system here is because our election system is based on a winner-take-all approach. That all but guarantees that there will be 2 parties, because a 3rd party will never succeed in getting elected unless they become big enough to replace one of the other 2.  European parliaments divvy up sets based on a percentage of votes.  So if the "Fucked in the Head" party gets 10% of the total vote, they get 10% of the seats in parliament.  A new government is formed from a coalition of single-issue parties.  If the coalition collapses, then you have to form a new coalition government and alliances shift between the parties to do so.  In the USA, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are also formed of coalitions of various interest groups, but the coalitions are more or less fixed in place these days.  They used to shift around a lot more 100 years ago, with presidential candidates each representing an interest group and the party primary being undecided even right up to the party convention.

That's what I would change, if I could change anything about US politics: get rid of the winner-take-all selection process for members of Congress.  That would break up the 2 party system and a lot of the rigidity that all but locks common folk out of power.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 24, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Well, the Super Committee was all but designed to fail.  It was just another way that spineless politicians from both sides could kick the can down the road some more & point fingers of blame at each other.
> 
> As for direct elections, that wouldn't result in single-issue parties like they have in Europe.  The reason we have a 2 party system here is because our election system is based on a winner-take-all approach. That all but guarantees that there will be 2 parties, because a 3rd party will never succeed in getting elected unless they become big enough to replace one of the other 2.  European parliaments divvy up sets based on a percentage of votes.  So if the "Fucked in the Head" party gets 10% of the total vote, they get 10% of the seats in parliament.  A new government is formed from a coalition of single-issue parties.  If the coalition collapses, then you have to form a new coalition government and alliances shift between the parties to do so.  In the USA, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are also formed of coalitions of various interest groups, but the coalitions are more or less fixed in place these days.  They used to shift around a lot more 100 years ago, with presidential candidates each representing an interest group and the party primary being undecided even right up to the party convention.
> 
> That's what I would change, if I could change anything about US politics: get rid of the winner-take-all selection process for members of Congress.  That would break up the 2 party system and a lot of the rigidity that all but locks common folk out of power.


The two party system truly does need to be broken up.


----------



## Cocobanana (Nov 24, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The two party system truly does need to be broken up.



Perhaps the main two parties we're currently offered aren't very appealing but if they were broken up, two new competitors would rise in their place. To me, it seems our country is more stable because we have two big parties instead of numerous splinter groups all vying for control over the nation like in places such as Somalia. Who would rather live there than here?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 24, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> Perhaps the main two parties we're currently offered aren't very appealing but if they were broken up, two new competitors would rise in their place. To me, it seems our country is more stable because we have two big parties instead of numerous splinter groups all vying for control over the nation like in places such as Somalia. Who would rather live there than here?


You do realize there's other non-fucked up countries with multiple parties right?
And have you even heard of the terrorist attacks the tea party is doing?  That doesn't seem very stable.  Think about it, a party who has pretty much taken over the republican party has members taking out terrorist attacks within our own countries against our own people.  Again, that's not stable.

If you don't believe me look up, "tea party member flies plane into irs building".


----------



## Carnie (Nov 24, 2011)

Having a set of morals that is definitively "correct", is possible. Some can be supported with more logical reasoning than others.
Though I could just be completely wrong in thinking this. Subjective vs. Objective can be so confusing to me.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 24, 2011)

"Correctness" is only in the eye of the beholder, whether it is a collective or just a single person. Morality is nonexistent, but a learned behavior.


----------



## Calemeyr (Nov 24, 2011)

I believe ignorant people (no not people who had low-quality education, I mean people who savor misinformation, pettiness, and stupidity) should be forcibly sterilized. These people should not breed, as they will spread their stupidity onto their children. It'll cut down on overpopulation, and will make the world a better place.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 24, 2011)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> I believe ignorant people (no not people who had low-quality education, I mean people who savor misinformation, pettiness, and stupidity) should be forcibly sterilized. These people should not breed, as they will spread their stupidity onto their children. It'll cut down on overpopulation, and will make the world a better place.



I agree.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 25, 2011)

I'd love to see a law past that puts sanctions on "stupid" or "ignorant" people. Everyone would just show up to court with everyone else's name on a piece of paper.

"Everyone who thought this was a good idea... step forward."


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 25, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> I'd love to see a law past that puts sanctions on "stupid" or "ignorant" people. Everyone would just show up to court with everyone else's name on a piece of paper.
> 
> "Everyone who thought this was a good idea... step forward."


Not to mention that it's eugenics.  People who believe in eugenics deserve to be taken out back and beat some common sense into them with fists, cause the number of people who have been killed cause of mentality like this is inexcusable.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not to mention that it's eugenics.  People who believe in eugenics deserve to be taken out back and beat some common sense into them with fists, cause the number of people who have been killed cause of mentality like this is inexcusable.



People who believe in eugenics need to be killed to help move mankind forward.

:V:V:V:V:V:V:V:V:V::V:V:V:V:


----------



## Calemeyr (Nov 25, 2011)

You know what...it's impossible since a large portion of the human race is hideously and gleefully uninformed. Did you know that some otherwise respectable American adults believe the Earth is flat? This number should be zero, barring severe mental issues. I guess it's something we just have to live with. Thankfully it seems that younger people are using the internet to end such ignorance. See, the internet isn't so bad after all...

Also inb4 the invocation of Godwin's Law.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 25, 2011)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> You know what...it's impossible since a large portion of the human race is hideously and gleefully uninformed. Did you know that some otherwise respectable American adults believe the Earth is flat? This number should be zero, barring severe mental issues. I guess it's something we just have to live with. Thankfully it seems that younger people are using the internet to end such ignorance. See, the internet isn't so bad after all...
> 
> Also inb4 the invocation of Godwin's Law.


The only way to combat it is to increase the amount of education students get.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 25, 2011)

Eugenics has bad and good things.

I believe that I would not be too opposed to it if it were instituted, I just wouldn't campaign to do so.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 25, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> Eugenics has bad and good things.
> 
> I believe that I would not be too opposed to it if it were instituted, I just wouldn't campaign to do so.


FUCK EUGENICS!
Fuck people who believe in eugenics with a barb wire dildo.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 25, 2011)

If YOU are scared of a bug that is less then 1/10th of your size, don't ask ME to take care of it, lazy ass. If I am not scared of it, it is your problem.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 25, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> Eugenics has bad and good things.
> 
> I believe that I would not be too opposed to it if it were instituted, I just wouldn't campaign to do so.



Eugenics is not inherently evil or anything.  It's just not NECESSARY yet.  It's tempting to wish it would happen when you see idiocy all about, but some kinds of idiocy will never go away, eugenics or no.  Don't confuse eugenics with population control.


----------



## Micahchu (Nov 25, 2011)

I believe that being gay is a choice.


Before people go batshit crazy telling me "OMGWTFBBQ IT IS SO NOT A CHOICE I DONT CHOOSE TO LIKE PENIS", hi there, I'm a psychology major, and I'm going to explain to you why being gay is in fact, a choice. Let me clear this up about "the gay gene", there is a gene that determines what sex you're attracted to, not a gene that makes one a homosexual. Basically it's what turns you on more. This, my friends is what we call "preference", this isn't your choice; however, identity (LGBTQ) is. 

Technically, all humans are two things for sure. Poly-amorous (we were made to reproduce ~and~ have fun with sex), and bisexual. That's right. All of us are bisexual. The word, bisexual, is one some people choose to shun because they think you should choose one or the other, this is wrong, as since we were made to reproduce and have fun with sex, naturally we both subconsciously fantasize about both sexes. It's a completely natural thing that some people choose to repress because of many reasons, such as stress and wishing to fit in with society. Liking both sexes is purely natural, and is one of our basic human instincts which we still act upon today.

To the choice of actually being gay. You may say you don't like vagina (or penis, if you're a lesbian), but you can train and condition yourself not to like it with your pre-conscious  and conscious behaviors. Pre-conscious and conscious are memories or actions that are readily active or can easily be brought to memory to become readily active. I could go into detail and explain the learning process with terms like "unconditioned response" becoming a "conditioned response", but I'd rather not bore you with psych terminology. Instead, google Pavlov's experiments. Basically you can choose to not like something, but in your subconscious you always will, and you can't do anything about it, but you can identify as "gay" in society if you wish to.


I do not believe people don't have the choice to identify as Gay or Lesbian, I just believe that it's a choice to act that way. Terms like: gay, lesbian, genderqueer, transsexual, transgender, even bisexual are all strictly anthropological. It's basic human instinct that drives us to do what we do naturally. :3


----------



## Onnes (Nov 25, 2011)

Micahchu said:


> Before people go batshit crazy telling me "OMGWTFBBQ IT IS SO NOT A CHOICE I DONT CHOOSE TO LIKE PENIS", hi there, I'm a psychology major, and I'm going to explain to you why being gay is in fact, a choice. Let me clear this up about "the gay gene", there is a gene that determines what sex you're attracted to, not a gene that makes one a homosexual. Basically it's what turns you on more. This, my friends is what we call "preference", this isn't your choice; however, identity (LGBTQ) is.



You say you're a psychology major and then go on to completely contradict the literature in both terminology and position. This shit is worthless without citations.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 25, 2011)

So you're basically saying that if a man has a preference to other men, they can still choose to do straight stuff? That is true, they can do that if they so wish. But in the end, it's like lying to the female partner and themselves, which doesn't seem to do anybody any good.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 25, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Eugenics is not inherently evil or anything.  It's just not NECESSARY yet.  It's tempting to wish it would happen when you see idiocy all about, but some kinds of idiocy will never go away, eugenics or no.  Don't confuse eugenics with population control.


The only sort of population control I would like to see is a retrovirus that would limit the number of children people can have to three, it wouldn't be that big of a difference, but it would stunt the increase in the amount of resources the world needs to sustain ourselves until we develop enough that we can figure out how to use our resources efficiently.  Not to mention that war torn and famine ravaged areas would see a plateau or decrease in population.  It wouldn't effect first world countries greatly, the greatest effect would be seen in places with a absurd population growth.
It wouldn't fix the world, just buy us some time.


----------



## Micahchu (Nov 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You say you're a psychology major and then go on to  completely contradict the literature in both terminology and position.  This shit is worthless without citations.





Where do I contradict myself, exactly? All of my terminology correct and my position remained the same. All I did was give an explanation on my position but apparently, you don't understand it enough to follow it. It's okay, it wasn't meant for unintelligent or immature people.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The only sort of population control I would like to see is a retrovirus that would limit the number of children people can have to three, it wouldn't be that big of a difference, but it would stunt the increase in the amount of resources the world needs to sustain ourselves until we develop enough that we can figure out how to use our resources efficiently.  Not to mention that war torn and famine ravaged areas would see a plateau or decrease in population.  It wouldn't effect first world countries greatly, the greatest effect would be seen in places with a absurd population growth.
> It wouldn't fix the world, just buy us some time.



Wait, that's BETTER than eugenics, to you? You dumb.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 25, 2011)

Micahchu said:


> Where do I contradict myself, exactly? All of my terminology correct and my position remained the same. All I did was give an explanation on my position but apparently, you don't understand it enough to follow it. It's okay, it wasn't meant for unintelligent or immature people.



Your use of terminology, as well as your argument itself, contradicts the psychological literature. Psychology is a science, and arguments within the sciences are made through established publications, which you failed to cite. Basically, you pulled a bizarre opinion out of your ass and then tried to give it the imprimatur of science.


----------



## Micahchu (Nov 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Your use of terminology, as well as your argument itself, contradicts the psychological literature. Psychology is a science, and arguments within the sciences are made through established publications, which you failed to cite. Basically, you pulled a bizarre opinion out of your ass and then tried to give it the imprimatur of science.



What do I need to cite, exactly? I'm simply restating little bits of information I've learned over the past 3 years. You're simply too immature to accept the fact that your sexuality is a choice. Go grow up before you go calling people with an education "wrong". Just because you've never heard of this idea doesn't mean it was pulled out of my ass, infact if I were to make a works cited page on that fucking forum post I'd probably need to cite 15 different textbooks and 4 different professors. It's called a summary, and in fact I wrote a final research paper on that very topic which earned me an A in my last course.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 25, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Wait, that's BETTER than eugenics, to you? You dumb.


It's still immoral, but the problem with eugenics is that there'd be no way of implementing it without a shitfest.  Even within the last few decades in the 70's and 80's we had the government sterilizing people they deemed as unfit.  Back then it was common belief that if someone was a addict then their kids will be addicts, or if someone was a murderer their kids would grow up to be murderers.  If eugenics was implemented you would see the government whenever one political party has control of the house, senate and presidency bumping up registered members of the opposing party to the top of the list instead of for legit reasons.
I'm pro-gene therapy cause it would level the playing field, but anti-genetic discrimination.  Some people do have stuff in their genes that will fuck up their life and passed down to their kids, but it shouldn't be stamped out by the government ripping out their reproductive system, it should be tested for and prevented so that they have a chance at a normal life.  Eugenics outright stamps the people with a blanket stamp as unfit to reproduce.
Having a retrovirus that would limit the number of children that can be born is immoral and evil, but third world countries war torn and famine ridden are facing a precipice of disaster that the majority of people don't give a damn about so long cause they're too busy watching X-factor.  We could fix global hunger and disease, but we have essentially become slaves to sensory stimulation in which we don't care about anything except for engorging ourselves.  In short the war against famine has lost, we need to reconsider alternative options to fight it, even if it means future generations will remember as evil monsters that were affront to humanity.

The problem with eugenics is that it could never be implemented effectively.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 25, 2011)

Micahchu said:


> What do I need to cite, exactly? I'm simply restating little bits of information I've learned over the past 3 years. You're simply too immature to accept the fact that your sexuality is a choice. Go grow up before you go calling people with an education "wrong". Just because you've never heard of this idea doesn't mean it was pulled out of my ass, infact if I were to make a works cited page on that fucking forum post I'd probably need to cite 15 different textbooks and 4 different professors. It's called a summary, and in fact I wrote a final research paper on that very topic which earned me an A in my last course.


This is going to hurt, but just because someone disagrees with you does not make them immature. Anyone aware of undergraduate education can recognize that undergrads can be wildly misinformed on the subject as they learn foundations. If your point is valid then you should have no trouble finding some form of citation to back yourself up. Asking for citation is not immature or wrong, it's people seeking further knowledge that isn't from an undergrad. If you're not willing to back up your knowledge then you shouldn't have said it in the first place. Saying "I'm an undergrad" holds no weight. Perhaps if you had a PhD and were a recognizable authority on the subject.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The problem with eugenics is that it could never be implemented effectively.



Yes it fucking could, just not on a global scale.


----------



## Micahchu (Nov 25, 2011)

Fay V said:


> This is going to hurt, but just because someone disagrees with you does not make them immature. Anyone aware of undergraduate education can recognize that undergrads can be wildly misinformed on the subject as they learn foundations. If your point is valid then you should have no trouble finding some form of citation to back yourself up. Asking for citation is not immature or wrong, it's people seeking further knowledge that isn't from an undergrad. If you're not willing to back up your knowledge then you shouldn't have said it in the first place. Saying "I'm an undergrad" holds no weight. Perhaps if you had a PhD and were a recognizable authority on the subject.



If I had the literature with me (Which I don't, I'm visiting home for holiday), I'd gladly provide a full MLA citation. But I called him immature because it's a study that I did and happened to write on, and he insulted me because he assumed it wasn't correct or at all credible. *The thread is called "Things you believe that would appall others". If  he believed my post was so appalling enough to attempt to argue it, then  he wasn't properly mentally equipped to be browsing this thread.* My information isn't incorrect but easily misunderstood. I provided simple examples to make it easy for any reader to follow (like my Pavlov's experiment example), which is a basic form of what I was explaining. There was another experiment in which a university scientist made a child afraid of rats using actual rats and a loud noise to elicit a conditioned response. Off-hand I don't remember the name of the scientist of the formal experiment; however it is in the literature I got my information from. The professor I had at the time actually wrote the textbook. As for me being an undergrad(which I never said I was), it doesn't make my information any less meaningful than if someone with a PhD had written the post. Knowledge is gained and stacked. Sorry I'm not good enough to be an 18 year old doctor.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 25, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Yes it fucking could, just not on a global scale.


No it can't, not even on the national level.  On the get go it would be entrenched with political bullcrap.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> No it can't, not even on the national level.  On the get go it would be entrenched with political bullcrap.



Think smaller.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 25, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Think smaller.


On even the smallest level it would turn out to be a shitfest, if on any level was implemented in america you would see foxnews running news stories calling Obama the anti-christ saying he's sterilizing, "good christian families".  Even if it was just preventing people who would give birth to severely disabled children, the news would just take it and just fucking run with it.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> On even the smallest level it would turn out to be a shitfest, if on any level was implemented in america you would see foxnews running news stories calling Obama the anti-christ saying he's sterilizing, "good christian families".  Even if it was just preventing people who would give birth to severely disabled children, the news would just take it and just fucking run with it.



Why do you keep insisting that the government would be involved


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 25, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Why do you keep insisting that the government would be involved


Very few people would volunteer to be sterilized, that's why.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 25, 2011)

Micahchu said:


> I believe that being gay is a choice. ...



Let's look at the basic problem here. In the real world, sexual orientation is not chosen in advance by the individual and is almost entirely immutable. One simply can't expect to modify their sexual orientation, and it's this view that has become the standard for looking at the dynamics of sexual preferences in society. By conflating natural preferences with highly unnatural and unusual conditioned preferences you remove any significance from the very idea of sexual orientation. The importance of those preferences stems from the fact that real individuals have minimal control over them, and to ignore that fact is to ignore their prominent place in human development and interactions.


----------



## Micahchu (Nov 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Let's look at the basic problem here. In the real world, sexual orientation is not chosen in advance by the individual and is almost entirely immutable. One simply can't expect to modify their sexual orientation, and it's this view that has become the standard for looking at the dynamics of sexual preferences in society. By conflating natural preferences with highly unnatural and unusual conditioned preferences you remove any significance from the very idea of sexual orientation. The importance of those preferences stems from the fact that real individuals have minimal control over them, and to ignore that fact is to ignore their prominent place in human development and interactions.



That's where the misunderstanding is. Notice where I stated that the idea of being gay is anthropogenic. Misunderstanding solved. Argument over.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> If someone hands you a credit or debit card, do you have the capability to withdraw or deposit money on it? The answer is probably no, since you'd need a card reader and the appropriate service contract. Physical money is only going to go away when everyone has their own cellphone or other such device with NFC capabilities, and that stuff isn't cheap.


But you can't replace physical money if it were to be stolen or lost.


Unsilenced said:


> The amount of money it takes to produce coin  or paper money is laughable in the grand scheme of things. Pennies and  nickles are kind of obsolete, but really it's not that much.
> 
> Plus, think about it. Friend asks if he can borrow $10, which is easier?  Giving him a slip of paper, or going to my computer and making a paypal  transaction?


Paypal transaction because what if you don't have it physically to present.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Very few people would volunteer to be sterilized, that's why.



yes that's why there are 1.6 million people every year who get tubal ligations and vasectomies

that's why there are plenty of childless-by-choice couples


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 25, 2011)

Tycho said:


> yes that's why there are 1.6 million people every year who get tubal ligations and vasectomies
> 
> that's why there are plenty of childless-by-choice couples


That's for alternative reasons and only some times cause of diseases they would pass off to their kids.  A ton of people just can't stand kids, but if someone wants kids and got a message saying they can't cause there'd be a high chance their kid wouldn't be able to take care of themselves, they'd either-
1)believe it won't happen, there's people that refuse to believe giving birth to a kid with like stds that it will be passed down to them.  My sister is one of these people, she refuses to believe her kids have HPV and the response she gave me was, "those scientists don't know what they're talking about, I know my kids better than they do".  All I proposed to her was getting them testing so that we'd know for certain and she lives in a land of ignorance sprinkled with hypocrisy.
2)They'd refuse to believe there was a reason they were on the list.
3)Even some people who legit had a reason for being on the list would think they were still superior than those not and would argue for removal from the list.
4)The only way it would be possible is if it was mandatory for everyone to get tested for diseases that would be passed onto future generations and let them decide in the end.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That's for alternative reasons and only some times cause of diseases they would pass off to their kids.  A ton of people just can't stand kids, but if someone wants kids and got a message saying they can't cause there'd be a high chance their kid wouldn't be able to take care of themselves, they'd either-
> 1)believe it won't happen, there's people that refuse to believe giving birth to a kid with like stds that it will be passed down to them.  My sister is one of these people, she refuses to believe her kids have HPV and the response she gave me was, "those scientists don't know what they're talking about, I know my kids better than they do".  All I proposed to her was getting them testing so that we'd know for certain and she lives in a land of ignorance sprinkled with hypocrisy.
> 2)They'd refuse to believe there was a reason they were on the list.
> 3)Even some people who legit had a reason for being on the list would think they were still superior than those not and would argue for removal from the list.
> 4)The only way it would be possible is if it was mandatory for everyone to get tested for diseases that would be passed onto future generations and let them decide in the end.



1) she's texan and a fucking moron
2) they obviously wouldn't participate in an eugenics program in the first place
3) see 3
4) testing is becoming more common with improvements in doctors' ability to spot congenital problems through DNA markers


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 26, 2011)

Tycho said:


> 1) she's texan and a fucking moron
> 2) they obviously wouldn't participate in an eugenics program in the first place
> 3) see 3
> 4) testing is becoming more common with improvements in doctors' ability to spot congenital problems through DNA markers


1)She Californian, and there are people out there that don't think diseases can be passed down.
2) and 3) good point
4)It'd have to reach the point where it became absurdly inexpensive.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> 1)She Californian



close enough


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 26, 2011)

Tycho said:


> close enough


Good point there, and yes I have lived there before.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 26, 2011)

I believe sometimes even CF can make worthwhile post


----------



## Fay V (Nov 26, 2011)

I don't like the idea of cutting off the number of kids for people as a base rule. After all if that were the case my brother wouldn't be around. He's a smart guy that will make something of himself...whereas a family with terrible parents could have 3 kids that become welfare moochers. 
there's also the problem of exacerbating current problems. Like the ban in china had parents abort girls and exacerbated the issue of gender in their society. Now it's mostly men and there's a big problem with male/female ratios


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I don't like the idea of cutting off the number of kids for people as a base rule. After all if that were the case my brother wouldn't be around. He's a smart guy that will make something of himself...whereas a family with terrible parents could have 3 kids that become welfare moochers.
> there's also the problem of exacerbating current problems. Like the ban in china had parents abort girls and exacerbated the issue of gender in their society. Now it's mostly men and there's a big problem with male/female ratios


I never said the idea wasn't immoral and evil, I said that we simply don't have the resources or are efficient enough with them to sustain the projected 9 billion people we'll have later this century.
Sometimes you have to do something immoral and taint yourself with sin to prevent a greater evil.
Some times no matter what no matter what you chose it's a immoral evil choice either way.
Like for instance say that you are a soldier in Iraq and a parent sent their kid to say hi to you, and the kid doesn't even realize his backpack is a bomb.  Would you shoot?  If you don't the parent will remote trigger it and kill fifty soldiers, if you do shoot you shot a innocent child.

tl:dr; there are times and places where morality, right and wrong fly right out of the window.


----------



## Vega (Nov 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Like for instance say that you are a soldier in Iraq and a parent sent their kid to say hi to you, and the kid doesn't even realize his backpack is a bomb.  Would you shoot?  If you don't the parent will remote trigger it and kill fifty soldiers, if you do shoot you shot a innocent child.



Don't shoot the kid, shoot the parent with the trigger.  Killing the kid doesn't stop the parent from detonating the bomb.




Here's something that I KNOW would appall everyone and might start some flaming:

I  believe Zoophilia isn't that bad, as long as you don't view the animal  as a thing or go overboard like that guy that released the book about the  dolphin, or marry the animal. * There are things far worse and far more disgusting than zoophilia;*  like pedophilia, scat fetish, snuff films, C&BT, cannibalism, killing or severely beating animals and/or children for  amusement or revenge.  Those in my book are far worse than Zoophilia.

Don't like it?  Well that's you opinion and you're entitled to it.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 26, 2011)

Off-topic: 
My, this thread was doing so well.

On-topic:
I believe... nah, I don't have too many controversial beliefs... nope, none so far... except... nah.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 26, 2011)

Vega said:


> Don't shoot the kid, shoot the parent with the trigger.  Killing the kid doesn't stop the parent from detonating the bomb.


If the mom is wearing a burqa in a crowd of people you wouldn't know which person and you'd have only a split second before detonation.


I believe we shouldn't cast judgment over the people who dropped the bomb in WWII, they killed countless civilians, had they not even more soldiers would've died.  We should however remember what they did and use it to justify for disarmament, show the politicians pictures of the dead and wounded innocent civilians will show their true nature.  If they get a war boner from images of the dead they need to be permanently banned from politics.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 26, 2011)

I believe Greece should do all in its power to shield the rest of us from their own mistakes and bad economic discipline.
I believe der Bundeskanzlerin is sexy.
I believe I am a feminist. That seems to be a biggie for many. :V



Ad Hoc said:


> (I'm a court  reporting student, won't be just a court reporter until I get  certified.)


If I sit next to you do I get to be the Fount of Justice?



CannonFodder said:


> You do realize there's other non-fucked up countries with multiple parties right?


Like a billiard. Probably the least phucked up are using multi-party system.



Vega said:


> I  believe Zoophilia isn't that bad, as long as you  don't view the animal  as a thing or go overboard like that guy that  released the book about the  dolphin, or marry the animal. * There are things far worse and far more disgusting than zoophilia;*   like pedophilia, scat fetish, snuff films, C&BT, cannibalism,  killing or severely beating animals and/or children for  amusement or  revenge.  Those in my book are far worse than Zoophilia.


I agree with you but do not understand how _scat fetish_ hurts anyone... and I do not want to know what C&BT is.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 26, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Paypal transaction because what if you don't have it physically to present.



...

The point is that you are physically present, and the computer is not. I don't take my computer when I go hang out with people. Do you?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 26, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Like a billiard. Probably the least phucked up are using multi-party system.


That's what I was getting at, over here in the states it's gotten so out of hand that we need to do something drastic to stop the polarization.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 26, 2011)

Vega said:


> Here's something that I KNOW would appall everyone and might start some flaming:
> 
> I  believe Zoophilia isn't that bad, as long as you don't view the animal  as a thing or go overboard like that guy that released the book about the  dolphin, or marry the animal. * There are things far worse and far more disgusting than zoophilia;*  like pedophilia, scat fetish, snuff films, C&BT, cannibalism, killing or severely beating animals and/or children for  amusement or revenge.  Those in my book are far worse than Zoophilia.
> 
> Don't like it?  Well that's you opinion and you're entitled to it.


I'm going to agree that given the choice of a child being raped and an animal being coerced into sex, I'd rather have someone screw the pooch. 

I've seen beaten animals and sexually abused animals though. The damage can be about the same, although the damage manifests itself in different ways. So on that point I don't agree.

Also I wouldn't say scat is more dangerous, it's gross but zoophilia has more diseases and STDs associated with it, if you've read about zoonoses.



Lizzie said:


> I agree with you but do not understand how _scat fetish_ hurts anyone... and I do not want to know what C&BT is.


Poop isn't very clean and getting it around your face area is really dangerous. It's another one of those reasons why I don't really like anal and don't really understand people that do.

There's an opinion that's shocked many a dude I've been with, anal is stupid, pointless, does nothing for me, and I don't see how it's anymore special or pleasurable over a vagina. 

Now with gay dudes it makes sense to me, they have prostates and it's about the only thing they CAN do. 

But anal with women? Never understood it, never will, always annoyed with guys who obsess over the "exoticness" of it when I'm like there's no real advantage to the poop chute other than it being tighter I guess.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 26, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> and I do not want to know what C&BT is.



Most people would be horrified I'm sure.

In your case? I bet you'd love it.



Lacus said:


> But anal with women? Never understood it, never will, always annoyed with guys who obsess over the "exoticness" of it when I'm like there's no real advantage to the poop chute other than it being tighter I guess.



1. Some women are looser than a glass of water
2. unless the hygiene of the catcher is sub-par or they're not good at keeping track of their own motility it's not godawful-filthy, there are gross things in vagoos too like uteri


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 26, 2011)

Tycho... C&BT scares me....

and Vega, I have to agree with you on the Zoophilia thing.


----------



## Vega (Nov 26, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Also I wouldn't say scat is more dangerous, it's gross but zoophilia has more diseases and STDs associated with it, if you've read about zoonoses.


I still think Scat is worse.

Eating scat (human feces) carries risks of bacterial infection.  Your  intestines contain a lot of live bacteria strains that do not belong in  the rest of your body.   Eating your own scat (or even putting it in your mouth or against an  open cut or mucous membrane) puts you at risk of infection from these.   If you are healthy and have a good immune system, your body may fight  off the bacteria in a small amount of scat, but it is not a sure thing. 

Eating someone else's scat carries a great risk of Hepatitis  infection.  It also has a risk of HIV infection if they have any small  injuries in their rectum.  Both are viral infections with no cure.   Additionally, any other infections they carry can be passed along to  you. 


@ Lizzy: C&BT = Cock & Balls Torture *shudders*


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 26, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> and Vega, I have to agree with you on the Zoophilia thing.


I take it you didn't see the thread over how they found out that bestiality causes penis cancer huh?


----------



## Neuron (Nov 26, 2011)

Tycho said:


> 1. Some women are looser than a glass of water
> 2. unless the hygiene of the catcher is sub-par or they're not good at keeping track of their own motility it's not godawful-filthy, there are gross things in vagoos too like uteri


In the case where the woman has already been determined to be really loose so anal is a better alternative, that makes a little more sense. And as something to try a few times to see what it's like, that makes sense too. But as an obsession where the guy only wants to do anal most of the time? Don't get it at all.

I'm aware that fucking asses can be fine, shit it before you hit it, wash it up, all that good stuff. But I still personally can't get over "poop comes from there" I guess. And yeah vagoos are pretty damn gross, but they're actually made to have penises stuck in them.


----------



## Spatel (Nov 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Pulling the plug on someone with locked-in syndrome is to put them out of pain, whereas eutanizing retarded individuals is just eugenics.



I don't necessarily believe that makes it wrong. I think the human race should strive to improve itself with technology, and ensure every child gets the most potential opportunities with their life. Knowingly setting them up to have the mental capacity of a 5 year old into their adult lives is cruel. If the mother finds out in her 2nd/3rd trimester that the baby has trisomy 18 or down's, I think she has every moral right to abort. It *does* prevent pain. It prevents pain for the child, and pain for the family and friends that would have to care for them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 26, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I don't necessarily believe that makes it wrong. I think the human race should strive to improve itself with technology, and ensure every child gets the most potential opportunities with their life. Knowingly setting them up to have the mental capacity of a 5 year old into their adult lives is cruel. If the mother finds out in her 2nd/3rd trimester that the baby has trisomy 18 or down's, I think she has every moral right to abort. It *does* prevent pain. It prevents pain for the child, and pain for the family and friends that would have to care for them.


I'm talking about people already born.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 26, 2011)

Vega said:


> @ Lizzy: C&BT = Cock & Balls Torture *shudders*





Tycho said:


> Most people would be horrified I'm sure.
> 
> In your case? I bet you'd love it.


...

What is that supposed to mean, uncle Tycho? >:V


----------



## Leafblower29 (Nov 26, 2011)

I believe that if we try to make an anti bullying law, congress will turn it into something that'll no longer allow freedom of speech.


----------



## Vega (Nov 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I take it you didn't see the thread over how they found out that bestiality causes penis cancer huh?



This is news to me although I'm not surprised, an animal's ass isn't clean and the Brazilian guy doesn't use a condom.  :|




Leafblower29 said:


> I believe that if we try to make an anti  bullying law, congress will turn it into something that'll no longer  allow freedom of speech.



Agreed, but that is why we should make the law more detailed and not vague like the anti piracy bill that is trying to be passed.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I take it you didn't see the thread over how they found out that bestiality causes penis cancer huh?



Oh I saw it, M. Sophisticated Shark. I am glad that the person who engaged in it would still wind up having issues. It's the "Would you rather" game for me here, I would rather see a dog screwed than a child.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 26, 2011)

Leafblower29 said:


> I believe that if we try to make an anti bullying law, congress will turn it into something that'll no longer allow freedom of speech.


Actually, minors already literally don't have freedom of speech, especially not in public schools funded by taxes. This was made pretty clear to me in high school that you really don't get any first amendment rights until you hit 18 and even after you hit 18 high school isn't the place for free speech at all.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 26, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I'm aware that fucking asses can be fine, shit it before you hit it, wash it up, all that good stuff. But I still personally can't get over "poop comes from there" I guess. And yeah vagoos are pretty damn gross, but they're actually made to have penises stuck in them.



And yet you're not going "ewww cunnilingus".


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 26, 2011)

The idea of the mentally deficient having greater legal protections than the average joe, and yet no social responsibilities, sickens me.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 26, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The idea of the mentally deficient having greater legal protections than the average joe, and yet no social responsibilities, sickens me.



It's cause nobody wants to..um... get rid of them.... and everyone wants to be nice and moral.

I have heard of programs where the mentally ill perform specialized tasks, like basket-weaving or knitting. This is only if they are capable of it, though. There's really not much most of them can do.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 26, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The idea of the mentally deficient having greater legal protections than the average joe, and yet no social responsibilities, sickens me.


Who sickens who? :V


----------



## Spatel (Nov 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm talking about people already born.



I'd say the first three months after birth should still be fair game. How's that?


----------



## Bambi (Nov 26, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Eugenics is not inherently evil or anything.  It's just not NECESSARY yet.  It's tempting to wish it would happen when you see idiocy all about, but some kinds of idiocy will never go away, eugenics or no.  Don't confuse eugenics with population control.


Eugenics is only celebrated when you're the one to decide whose genes get to stay, and whose genes have to go. As for everything else, it's just the social eugenicists argumentative appeal to social Darwinism, and so here's it's fatal flaw:

Weakness adds constructive variation, and as weakness competes for equal holding with those who are stronger, weakness triumphs eventually. Why destroy variation? Why stagnate the gene pool with domesticated supermen who can do nothing but await genetic disaster? And furthermore, what *is* weakness? Someones race, creed, or sexual orientation? Could weakness be a social metaphor for convenience, or personal threshold to adversity? Absolutely. 

Nature deals with weakness according to the constraints the organism lives under, as does it's pejorative opposites. Forcing an artificial burden to convenience some asshole in the stands is, I believe, a crime against nature -- the only crime man can commit against nature, as well as himself. Either way, Nietzsche said it best: 





			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism#cite_note-20 said:
			
		

> Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest  importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial  weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help  to advance it. Something similar also happens in the individual. There  is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical  or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and  restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be  alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will  have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and  certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival  of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which  to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 26, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I'd say the first three months* after birth* should still be fair game. How's that?


No, not fair game.


----------



## eversleep (Nov 26, 2011)

Lacus said:


> But anal with women? Never understood it, never will, always annoyed with guys who obsess over the "exoticness" of it when I'm like there's no real advantage to the poop chute other than it being tighter I guess.


My friend does anal to girls because he doesn't wanna get them pregnant, and he doesn't like condoms and the girl doesn't take pills.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 26, 2011)

eversleep said:


> My friend does anal to girls because he doesn't wanna get them pregnant, and *he doesn't like condoms* and the girl doesn't take pills.


Inb4 he gets a std.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 26, 2011)

eversleep said:


> My friend does anal to girls because he doesn't wanna get them pregnant, and he doesn't like condoms and the girl doesn't take pills.



I hate to tell ya but you still have a chance of getting pregnant from that... if any of the "drippage" leaks in to the vagina, even from the outside, there is still a chance.
Also, you might wanna tell your friend to use condoms when performing anal sex. He could get a disease from all the bacteria in a woman's anus.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 26, 2011)

@Population Control:

All in favor, go play in traffic. Until then, learn to deal with the fact that you have to share the space of this planet with other people who, with some minimal differences, all share the same relative humanity.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 26, 2011)

Tycho said:


> And yet you're not going "ewww cunnilingus".


Pussy tastes pretty good. Not gonna lie. Putting your mouth on a vagina is a lot different than putting your mouth on an asshole so I don't know what your point is. Think you just want to argue to argue.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 26, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Pussy tastes pretty good. Not gonna lie. Putting your mouth on a vagina is a lot different than putting your mouth on an asshole so I don't know what your point is.



What happened to "vagoos are pretty gross"?



Lacus said:


> Think you just want to argue to argue.



This is a bad thing?


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 27, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> ...
> 
> The point is that you are physically present, and the computer is not. I don't take my computer when I go hang out with people. Do you?



Paypal has a mobile site, so desktop isn't needed to begin with.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> What happened to "vagoos are pretty gross"?


Vagoos are pretty gross if you think too much about it, that's why when faced with a hot woman I don't think about it too much and suck it up for delicious pussy. :V


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Vagoos are pretty gross if you think too much about it, that's why when faced with a hot woman I don't think about it too much and suck it up for delicious pussy. :V



total hypocrisy here.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 27, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Paypal has a mobile site, so desktop isn't needed to begin with.



Not everyone has/wants to carry around a mobile phone with that kind of capability, and it's still more trouble than pulling a bill out of your pocket. 

If cash were less convenient than electronic money, people wouldn't use cash. It's just that simple.


----------



## eversleep (Nov 27, 2011)

Also back to the anal thing... maybe some straight guys just like the look/feel of a woman's rear? Maybe it turns them on a lot? They don't really need an excuse to love it. There are so many weird fetishes out there, anal sex isn't one of them.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 27, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Not everyone has/wants to carry around a mobile phone with that kind of capability, and it's still more trouble than pulling a bill out of your pocket.
> 
> If cash were less convenient than electronic money, people wouldn't use cash. It's just that simple.



Not to mention that I've never been charged a fee to hand someone some bills.


----------



## Spatel (Nov 27, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Pussy tastes pretty good. Not gonna lie. Putting your mouth on a vagina is a lot different than putting your mouth on an asshole so I don't know what your point is. Think you just want to argue to argue.



Two can play this game.

I've taken bigger dicks than mine up the ass. If I can handle it she can handle it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 27, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I've taken bigger dicks than mine up the ass.


So the size of a pinky finger?


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Nov 27, 2011)

A thread about personal beliefs has devolved into a discussion on Anal sex? 

Fan-fuckin-tastic. :V 

I was actually enjoying this thread.  



I believe an electronic money system would work if well enough implemented. It would also be massively vulnerable unless security measures were impregnable and foolproof and constantly backed up. 

I believe our existence is fleeting and inconsequential, and no single life is sacred.


----------



## Spatel (Nov 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> So the size of a pinky finger?



is that what your mother told you?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 27, 2011)

Spatel said:


> is that what your mother told you?


If you're my dad I do believe you owe 20 years backlog of child support.




I believe that in the end the world won't end through nuclear warfare or such; I think in the end we may have some close calls, but in the end will eventually succeed in fixing all the things messed up in the world.  It may not happen in our lifetime, but hopefully future generations will have a better world.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> total hypocrisy here.


Vaginas were made to have sexual actions performed on them. Don't know how much clearer I can make that. We can argue all day but performing sexual actions on a part of the body intended for sexual actions and not wanting something to do with a part of the body not intended for that at all isn't hypocrisy. Vags are kinda gross because they are wet cavities that harbor bacteria, but it's nothing compared to the place where HUMAN SHIT comes from.

So whatever I don't like anal so I don't understand people who like anal so what exactly are you trying to convince me of? To take it up the pooper? To say that I get fucking asses and fully advocate it? I'm not even saying I care if people want to do that.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 27, 2011)

@Lacus, Tycho:

Why do asses and vagina's have to be gross, or gross looking? 8)


----------



## Stawks (Nov 27, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Eugenics is only celebrated when you're the one to decide whose genes get to stay, and whose genes have to go. As for everything else, it's just the social eugenicists argumentative appeal to social Darwinism, and so here's it's fatal flaw:
> 
> Weakness adds constructive variation, and as weakness competes for equal holding with those who are stronger, weakness triumphs eventually. Why destroy variation? Why stagnate the gene pool with domesticated supermen who can do nothing but await genetic disaster? And furthermore, what *is* weakness? Someones race, creed, or sexual orientation? Could weakness be a social metaphor for convenience, or personal threshold to adversity? Absolutely.
> 
> Nature deals with weakness according to the constraints the organism lives under, as does it's pejorative opposites. Forcing an artificial burden to convenience some asshole in the stands is, I believe, a crime against nature -- the only crime man can commit against nature, as well as himself. Either way, Nietzsche said it best:



Bambi, I fucking love you.

I think my appalling belief is that Grae Sparrowkin is a terrible psychologist.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 27, 2011)

I believe that the weirder, ED-worthy furries need to be 'fursecuted' more than they already are-- but by other furries.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Nov 27, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Not everyone has/wants to carry around a mobile phone with that kind of capability, and it's still more trouble than pulling a bill out of your pocket.
> 
> If cash were less convenient than electronic money, people wouldn't use cash. It's just that simple.



That why the debit card was invented for, exactly that.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 27, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> That why the debit card was invented for, exactly that.



But not everyone has a debit card reader that they carry around. In fact nobody does. 

Basically, you are just really, really wrong.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

Bambi said:


> @Lacus, Tycho:
> 
> Why do asses and vagina's have to be gross, or gross looking? 8)



She is clearly concerned about the unsanitary nature of certain sex acts and I am simply trying to educate her and warn her of other possible threats.Shh.  This is fun.

@Lacus: They may have been intended to be used for sex acts, but beyond simple "tab A into slot B" copulation? Don't think so.

Also, think of how many wonderful germs are in the human MOUTH.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 27, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I believe that the weirder, ED-worthy furries need to be 'fursecuted' more than they already are-- but by other furries.


Well if ED gave out more personal information, like their phone number and that, it may come to pass; but digging up personal info is far harder than some dumb moron linking to their facebook on their fa profile.


----------



## Spatel (Nov 27, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Vaginas were made to have sexual actions performed on them. Don't know how much clearer I can make that. We can argue all day but performing sexual actions on a part of the body intended for sexual actions and not wanting something to do with a part of the body not intended for that at all isn't hypocrisy. Vags are kinda gross because they are wet cavities that harbor bacteria, but it's nothing compared to the place where HUMAN SHIT comes from.



Mouths were not intended for sexual actions yet you're okay with oral.

"I don't care about what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do."
-Ed Harris, Apollo 13, 1995


----------



## Riyeko (Nov 27, 2011)

I believe that we as a human race, need to focus on colonizing our solar system. They say that the universe holds infinte possibilities for intelligent life elsewhere than on Earth.
In my opinion, if we dont start colonizing, say the Moon really really soon, then shit.. some alien asshole race is going to come and take over OUR moon and damn, that would piss me off outright.

I believe the Vore furs are hiding a psychological disorder. People who eat themselves and cause significant pain (like trying to cut off fingers/arms/etc), to themselves are hospitilized. Vore is the act of wanting to be eaten, or eating another person. That either screams mental disorder to me, or cannabalism, which is disgusting.



Spoiler: Human Being Hate



I am racist against human beings.We are rude, obnoxious, self centered asshole examples of creatures that were put on earth. We move to one area, consume, then move on or spread out. Its not exactly how nature intended, regardless if nature gave us huge brains or not.





Spoiler: Pedophile Hate



I believe that people who do unseemly harm to animals or children should be killed. And no im not talking about being put to sleep with chemicals via a needle. Im talking about being flayed alive, drawn and quartered by horses pulling your body parts, or possibly just having some psychotic person take one small knife, and slowly make you bleed to death.
Hurting lower life forms and children, who cant protect themselves or handle it mentally/physically/emotionally, is a completely dick move and you should be punished for it.





Spoiler: Human Repeat Pregnancy Belief



I think that some people should be sterilized. Im sorry its a horrible thing to believe in but dammit, when a crack whore has 6 children and ends up becoming pregnant again, theyre draining the economy and using up tax dollars when they could be used for something else.
Now im not saying that everyone should be sterilized, but at least people who are never going to get better (those that have been in rehab 50 times and are still shooting/smoking/etc, or the ones that have 4+ children taken by DFS/CPS and are pregnant again)... its just stupid to continue to have one person having ten children because THEY CAN, when they dont have a job, continue to be addicted to drugs or other nasty things, or are bad parents and keep having children.



That is all.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 27, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Mouths were not intended for sexual actions yet you're okay with oral.
> 
> "I don't care about what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do."
> -Ed Harris, Apollo 13, 1995


Anything, anytime, anyplace can be sexualized.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 27, 2011)

For fuck's sake. What the fuck do you want from me?

Just leave me alone. It's not hypocritical to like one sexual part of the body and not really care for another. It's stupid to say it is.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 27, 2011)

Riyeko said:


> Spoiler: Human Being Hate
> 
> 
> 
> I am racist against human beings.We are rude, obnoxious, self centered asshole examples of creatures that were put on earth. We move to one area, consume, then move on or spread out. *Its not exactly how nature intended, *regardless if nature gave us huge brains or not.



Nature didn't "intend" for life to consume, reproduce and spread to the best of its ability? 

Uh... yeah...  :v


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Anything, anytime, anyplace can be sexualized.



puttin' mah "package" in the male mail
I got 5.25" just waitin' to boot you up baby
...ok just look at it




Lacus said:


> For fuck's sake. What the fuck do you want from me?



I already got it, thanks.  You're fun.



Lacus said:


> Just leave me alone. It's not hypocritical to like one sexual part of the body and not really care for another. It's stupid to say it is.



When you make that judgment on the grounds of "eww germs unsanitary" it kinda is, toots


----------



## Neuron (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> I already got it, thanks.  You're fun.
> 
> 
> 
> When you make that judgment on the grounds of "eww germs unsanitary" it kinda is, toots


Yeah okay whatever, I should know better than to feed a troll. Especially one who's so bad at it.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Yeah okay whatever, I should know better than to feed a troll. Especially one who's so bad at it.



heeheehee


----------



## Neuron (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> heeheehee


You know what.

You're kind of an ass hat.

But you're also fucking adorable. 

So I'm conflicted. :c


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

Lacus said:


> You know what.
> 
> You're kind of an ass hat.
> 
> ...



go with ass hat, helps me keep what precious little troll cred I have seeing as I'm terrible at it


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> go with ass hat, helps me keep what precious little troll cred I have seeing as I'm terrible at it


But you're such a adorable putty tat, yes you are, yes you are.  Goochie goochie goo.




*before a mod infracts for topic drift*

Let's see something I believe that would appall others?
I think people on both sides should chill the fuck out when it comes to religion, if people in general tolerated each others beliefs we'd have less shit going on in this world.  The notion of winner take all causes to much on both sides.  If you are atheist fine, if you are muslim okeey dookey lokey, if you are hindu whatevs, etc.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Let's see something I believe that would appall others?
> I think people on both sides should chill the fuck out when it comes to religion, if people in general tolerated each others beliefs we'd have less shit going on in this world.  The notion of winner take all causes to much on both sides.  If you are atheist fine, if you are muslim okeey dookey lokey, if you are hindu whatevs, etc.



The very nature of the missionary religions like Islam and Christianity is one of intolerance, "my way or the highway", etc.  IIRC Sharia Law actually dictates that anyone who lives in a Muslim-controlled area and is NOT a Muslim is required to pay a tax until they convert.  That's the tip of the iceberg.  The Jews (Jacobites, whatever you want to call them) have historically been genocidal pricks (it has more to do with their identity as a people/ethnicity apart than their religion at times, though).  The Christians... well, the Crusades were a shining example of "fuck all y'all, I have God's blessing on my sword" and the typical manifest-destiny mentality present at pretty much all times in varying degrees in the Abrahamic faiths.  The "People of the Book" should be called the "People of the Sword" honestly.

tl;dr as long as Islam, Judaism and Christianity are on the playing field there will DEFINITELY not be a "sing Kumbaya around the fire and hold hands" mentality worldwide.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> The very nature of the missionary religions like Islam and Christianity is one of intolerance, "my way or the highway", etc.  IIRC Sharia Law actually dictates that anyone who lives in a Muslim-controlled area and is NOT a Muslim is required to pay a tax until they convert.  That's the tip of the iceberg.  The Jews (Jacobites, whatever you want to call them) have historically been genocidal pricks (it has more to do with their identity as a people/ethnicity apart than their religion at times, though).  The Christians... well, the Crusades were a shining example of "fuck all y'all, I have God's blessing on my sword" and the typical manifest-destiny mentality present at pretty much all times in varying degrees in the Abrahamic faiths.  The "People of the Book" should be called the "People of the Sword" honestly.
> 
> tl;dr as long as Islam, Judaism and Christianity are on the playing field there will DEFINITELY not be a "sing Kumbaya around the fire and hold hands" mentality worldwide.


Oh dear, here we go.

*pulls up lawn chair, grabs popcorn and waits for the inevitable Rukh post*


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh dear, here we go.
> 
> *pulls up lawn chair, grabs popcorn and waits for the inevitable Rukh post*



Rukh can eat my shit, all he has to offer is "word of God" Bible spew. And he makes sure to emphasize that "JESUS/GOD SAID THIS THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE WRONG YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG NYEH NYEH."


----------



## Riyeko (Nov 27, 2011)

You know, on the topic of religion... I absolutely hate it when people say the word Muslim and automatically think "TERRORIST!" "HATE MONGER!" "RETARD WHO WANTS TO KILL EVERYTHING THAT ISNT MUSLIM!"

Which is completely untrue.
I know some Muslims that think what Al Quaida does is absolutely horrible. Even though the Quaran speaks of killing all non-believers, there are some things in there that speak of peace, love and life. 
Not all Muslims are bad.

Also, if you have a problem with the Muslim women wearing burqas, fuck you. Mennonites wear head coverings as well, and they are christians.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

Riyeko said:


> Also, if you have a problem with the Muslim women wearing burqas, fuck you. Mennonites wear head coverings as well, and they are christians.



Fuck the Mennonites, too.

The burqa has little to do with the actual Muslim religion and a LOT more to do with the Arab/Middle Eastern cultures' pervasive gynophobia/misogyny.  IIRC there ARE NO HARD-AND-FAST DRESS CODES OUTLINED IN THE KORAN.  It is CULTURAL.  The Arabs/Middle Easterners have a STRANGLEHOLD on the Muslim religion thanks to Mecca and Medina and they have used Islam as a way to further their own bigotry.


----------



## Vega (Nov 27, 2011)

I dislike people who think killing or suffering is the best and only answer.  Congratulations!  You're one of the reasons why this world isn't improving at all!


----------



## Riyeko (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Fuck the Mennonites, too.
> 
> The burqa has little to do with the actual Muslim religion and a LOT more to do with the Arab/Middle Eastern cultures' pervasive gynophobia/misogyny. IIRC there ARE NO HARD-AND-FAST DRESS CODES OUTLINED IN THE KORAN. It is CULTURAL. The Arabs/Middle Easterners have a STRANGLEHOLD on the Muslim religion thanks to Mecca and Medina and they have used Islam as a way to further their own bigotry.



Mennonites dont hurt anyone and they are a peaceful religion.
They dont go door to door and spew their "you must be christian" stuff just because the bible says to missionary to the world dude.

Im not exactly why youre on such a hate speech of everyone thats religious. Youre starting to sound like someone who is screaming "FUCK THIS!" just because they can, without any real shit to back them up.

And actually, the Quaran states that a woman shouldnt be seen "fully" by anyone but her husband. Has to do with the virginity shit.
Mennonites cover their women, because somewhere in Proverbs in the Bible, it says women should cover their heads while theyre praying or something along those lines.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

Riyeko how much Arabic can you read/speak

Have you ever been to a mosque or masjid

Do tell


----------



## Riyeko (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Riyeko how much Arabic can you read/speakHave you ever been to a mosque or masjidDo tell



Just because I cant read or speak Arabic, nor have I ever been to a Mosque, doenst mean that I dont know anything about the religion.

Argument, invalid.

Edit: It would be like me asking you if you knew any High German, if you started to rag on the Amish.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

Riyeko said:


> Just because I cant read or speak Arabic, nor have I ever been to a Mosque, doenst mean that I dont know anything about the religion.
> 
> Argument, invalid.



FUCKING WRONG

WRONGWRONGWRONG.

The Koran is only published in one language: Arabic.  Any "English" Korans are actually transliterations and would NOT be viewed as holy text by an imam, not to mention they would not be effective TRANSLATIONS because of the Arabic language's differences from English.  (Note: Muslims generally try to memorize the damn Koran, and a special honorific is given to a man who has committed the Koran to memory and can recite from it).  It must be read from in Arabic, it must be written in Arabic.  A woman cannot be in the same room as the men who are hearing the imam recite verses (there's a special name for them and I cannot remember what) from the Koran.


----------



## Namba (Nov 27, 2011)

I believe Charlie Brown is bald because of all the stress he puts himself under.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 27, 2011)

Luti Kriss said:


> I believe Charlie Brown is bald because of all the stress he puts himself under.


He needs to see a actual therapist.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Riyeko how much Arabic can you read/speak
> 
> Have you ever been to a mosque or masjid
> 
> Do tell


I can't speak arabic, but I have been to a mosque and I have spoken to the Imam on a personal level.

They aren't hateful people at all, especially the ones that live in America. They generally believe in unity, brotherhood, a lot of good stuff. They welcome anyone who is curious. I spoke to the Imam personally about the relationship between Christians and followers of Islam. The Imam showed me the Koran and told me about some verses where they speak of Christians being the same "people of the book" and how it would be wrong to kill them. 

In fact the Imam told me that unlike some fundamentalist Christians, they feel it is all right to interpret the Koran to modern times. They are a very progressive people. When I spoke to the Imam about the violent parts of the Koran he told me that while centuries ago that was the prevailing attitude, they no longer feel killing a "non-believer" would be right and in his opinion he feels Allah is angered by all violence that isn't self defense, and mostly the Koran says if you are invaded you must defend yourself. 

While people often criticize the muslim people for being conquerors, during the Crusades the muslims were following *rules of war that were originally detailed by their prophet Muhammad.* It is generally believed by historians that the Muslim people were the only culture that followed ethical guidelines for war and conquering.

The Imam had a conversation with me as well about how Evolution was the only plausible explanation for humankind and that the majority of Muslims believed in it. They believe that evolution was sparked by Allah, but the Imam personally told me that religion without science is worthless.

Back in the middle ages while Europe devolved and was calling for the heads of scientists, the Muslim world was busy preserving Roman and Greek culture, developing complex algebraic concepts, and figuring out how to tie off arteries so people wouldn't bleed to death.

On the topic of women wearing the veil, the Imam and I had a long conversation about how any follower of Islam who would harm, kill, or rape a woman is not a true follower of Allah. He directed and translated a passage of the Koran for me which stated that women were to be almost revered in their culture, it was almost describing women like Goddesses, honestly. That's very interesting when you consider Muhammad's close relationship to his wife. The Imam said the veil was more of a cultural thing and that mostly the point is that you should cover yourself inside of a holy place like a mosque. 

In the Mosque that I visit, I must wear a veil and I don't mind doing it. Men are also required to cover their heads before entering the Mosque, so I don't find it discriminatory.

The Imam and I don't agree on homosexuality, he believes it is wrong and goes against Allah wanting procreation, however he believes that no one should harm a homosexual for their sins. Love the sinner, hate the sin kind of deal.

And yes, I have considered actually studying arabic so that I can properly read the Koran myself.

Anyway if you want an interesting read about a lot of this stuff here ya go.


----------



## Namba (Nov 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> He needs to see a actual therapist.


Lucy is a horrible therapist. She builds up his hopes and dreams every time he's about to kick that football, then smashes his hopes and dreams as she moves it out of the way. ...and he falls for it every time (no pun intended).
Poor prepubescent bald kid.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> The burqa has little to do with the actual Muslim religion and a LOT more to do with the Arab/Middle Eastern cultures' pervasive gynophobia/misogyny.


I DRESS HOW I LIKE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.


----------



## Namba (Nov 27, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I DRESS HOW I LIKE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.



Dear God!!!


----------



## Riyeko (Nov 27, 2011)

Luti Kriss said:


> Dear God!!!



You think thats bad?
You should have seen my halloween costume about 12 years ago...


----------



## Aleu (Nov 27, 2011)

I believe in a god and an afterlife but I don't believe in aliens.
I believe that incest should be legal.
I believe that prostitution should be legal.
I believe that life CAN be fair, we just choose to make it as unfair as possible.


----------



## Sharpguard (Nov 27, 2011)

Okay, this one is gonna be a long one, because it takes a lot for me to explain my reasoning. Sorry if it's a major text wall.

I think that the age of consent is a lazy construct using numbers instead of common sense to decide if a person can consent, while keeping two consenting people of vast age difference separated. Several "underage" individuals participate in sexual activities on their own with each other. However, I think responsibility is another thing entirely from consent, and there can be laws or ordinances to keep individuals and naive teenagers from adding to a population/youth STD crisis or such, and I would also support looking into said individual for possible involvement in any molestation or pornography involving individuals who obviously cannot understand, and thus cannot consent. However, I don't believe say, having sex with a naive teenager should be on the same level of criminal punishment as the molestation of a prepubescent child who has yet to comprehend what sex actually is, though I have nothing against investigating if the individual responsible for the former is responsible for the latter, if there were indeed an ordinance of population/STD control as I mentioned earlier. Ideally, I would also have a much stronger and comprehensive Sex Education courses at a certain point to prevent confusion and help close up and possibly grey area. Alternatively, there could be an "at least" age, where grey areas can be investigated underneath, and anything over is accepted, as apposed to anything below being an immediate no-no. Basically, I think _almost _100% of the time, I think whether or not someone is mature enough to consent should be obvious with just a little looking into the persons understanding of sex, and that maturity to consent and maturity to face the consequences should be addressed as 2 separate issues.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I can't speak arabic, but I have been to a mosque and I have spoken to the Imam on a personal level.
> 
> They aren't hateful people at all, especially the ones that live in America. They generally believe in unity, brotherhood, a lot of good stuff. They welcome anyone who is curious. I spoke to the Imam personally about the relationship between Christians and followers of Islam. The Imam showed me the Koran and told me about some verses where they speak of Christians being the same "people of the book" and how it would be wrong to kill them.
> 
> ...



You went to one of the more progressive ones to be sure.  Here in Western WA there were few options (that we were informed of) for mosques/masjids to visit for my Humanities class.  One was pretty nice, but I didn't learn that until I had already visited one where the man who greeted me and guided me went from  to absofuckinglutely frosty when I stated that I wasn't going to convert.

As for the rest? Yes, I am well aware that Islam is not necessarily a bunch of crazy ululating cutthroats.  I am well aware of how Saladin took the idea of civilized warfare seriously.  The nastiest ugliest thorniest plant produces pretty flowers occasionally, and so it is with the Abrahamic religions.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 27, 2011)

Stawks said:


> I think my appalling belief is that Grae Sparrowkin is a terrible psychologist.



Hey hey! That's just callin' me out! Naughty you are, Stawks. Plus, I am still learning how to be one.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

Luti Kriss said:


> Lucy is a horrible therapist. She builds up his hopes and dreams every time he's about to kick that football, then smashes his hopes and dreams as she moves it out of the way. ...and he falls for it every time (no pun intended).
> Poor prepubescent bald kid.



The Charlie Brown character is a "loser" by design, representative of the concept of the luckless man who couldn't catch a break with a net and a speargun.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 27, 2011)

Tycho: hunter and killer of things called jokes.

Anyways!

I believe that moms should NOT BY ANY MEANS act like rabid fangirls when their children come home from college.
I believe that children should not create the rules in a household.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 27, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Tycho: hunter and killer of things called jokes.
> I believe that children should not create the rules in a household.



Aint the last one a rule and common sense.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Tycho: hunter and killer of things called jokes.



...What?


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 28, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> Aint the last one a rule and common sense.



Not in my Momma's household! I have a little sister who runs it. A little, diagnosed as psychologically disturbed sister.


----------



## thewall (Nov 28, 2011)

I come across as homophobic sometimes, but I do my best to be tolerant of other people's orientation.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 28, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Not in my Momma's household! I have a little sister who runs it. A little, diagnosed as psychologically disturbed sister.



Sorry about that bro. :/


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 28, 2011)

Outside note:

I just want to thank you all for keeping this thread relatively civil. It makes me smile.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 28, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Outside note:
> 
> I just want to thank you all for keeping this thread relatively civil. It makes me smile.



Civil? You called me a joke-killer missy, them's fighting words! >:C


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 28, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Civil? You called me a joke-killer missy, them's fighting words! >:C



I am waiting to see who can ruin the civility of this thread first.


----------



## Gracie (Nov 28, 2011)

1. Gay people have absolutely every right straight people do. People who believe otherwise should be thrown promptly into the nearest gorge.
2. Babyfurs are creepy. Really creepy.
3. Scat porn is greatly distressing.
4. Abortions should be the recommended course of action when dealing with teenage pregnancy.
5. Stupid people should not be allowed to procreate.
6. I can believe its not butter.
7. Eating meat is natural, more so than forcing a cat, dog or similar to not eat meat.
8. Religion is not a replacement for common sense.
9. Furries are cool.


This is mostly me ranting so yeah, if I offended you I apologise.

On the plus side, I think courgettes are delicious when steamed. Which for some reason isnt something people seem to agree with.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 28, 2011)

Gracie said:


> 1. Gay people have absolutely every right straight people do. People who believe otherwise should be thrown promptly into the nearest gorge.
> 2. Babyfurs are creepy. Really creepy.
> 3. Scat porn is greatly distressing.
> 4. Abortions should be the recommended course of action when dealing with teenage pregnancy.
> ...



*clap clap clap*


----------



## thewall (Nov 28, 2011)

Gracie said:


> 4. Abortions should be the recommended course of action when dealing with teenage pregnancy.
> 9. Furries are cool.
> 
> 
> This is mostly me ranting so yeah, if I offended you I apologise.



Yesh.  Offensive.  Furries in general are not cool.  I'm not cool.  I'm also pro life.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 28, 2011)

thewall said:


> Yesh.  Offensive.  Furries in general are not cool.  I'm not cool.  I'm also pro life.



Ahm... Wall-person? Meet someone with a different opinion on abortion than you. Understand this and move on.

kthxbai


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 28, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Ahm... Wall-person? Meet someone with a different opinion on abortion than you. Understand this and move on.
> 
> kthxbai


It's just mike37 in disguise.

On-topic, I think if there is any real evidence for the idea that Jews control the media, it can be found in the History Channel's program lineup.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 28, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> It's just mike37 in disguise.
> 
> On-topic, I think if there is any real evidence for the idea that Jews control the media, it can be found in the History Channel's program lineup.



Lolhitlerchannel.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 28, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Lolhitlerchannel.



I miss the Hitler Channel; at least it was educational!


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 28, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I miss the Hitler Channel; at least it was educational!



Wait, what's it now? 

Have they, like, started doing the history of the paranormal or some shit now? Staring Bear Grylls?

 /hopelessly off-topic


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 28, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> It's just mike37 in disguise.
> .



Shhh! He should not know I know these things!!!!

And yeah, now they talk about the paranormal and how aliens created the world and had supergodmagics...

I dont believe aliens have supergodmagics... I think they follow sciences like the rest of us


----------



## Gracie (Nov 28, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Ahm... Wall-person? Meet someone with a different opinion on abortion than you. Understand this and move on.
> 
> kthxbai



Said it better than I could.


----------



## thewall (Nov 28, 2011)

Gracie said:


> Said it better than I could.



It made me laugh when she said "wall person".  And yes, I changed my name.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 28, 2011)

Hearing people talk about aborting fetuses with genetic disorders "for their own good" makes me queasy. On one hand, I can see where it probably is the most humane option for some kids. On the other hand, where to draw the line is a very subjective matter, and almost all of the people I hear discussing the issue do not themselves have a genetic disorder. I do have one. I know that, depending on who was drawing the line, I would have been on the chopping block. This disease can be terrible. I know a woman with it who cannot lay down without suffocating because her sternum collapses. I know a girl with it who cannot stand without her hip dislocating. There are types of the disease that make a man's skin as thin and fragile as onion skin; it just peels right off. There are types that make you lucky to make it to your 20s for heart deformities. And always, always there is pain, pain, pain. Yet they persevere, they wish to live, they find their happinesses. I can tell you that most life enjoys living, handicap or no. It is rather sickeningly ableist to assume that a person does not still wish to live just because they are not able-bodied. 

I believe in euthanasia--if the person in question consents to it. I don't think that anyone should be able to make my decision to live or die for me, short of a few particular circumstances, especially if they are not _personally_ familiar with my pain. (And so few of the people who bring this up have a debilitating genetic disorder of any kind, they speak from a place of such privilege.) I could not have expressed such a decision as a fetus. If I had to be aborted, then let me be aborted because the birth would kill my mother, or because she could not reasonably care for me, not for some weak ableist assumption about my will to live.


----------



## Gracie (Nov 28, 2011)

If this thread about offensive opinions offended you then you are a silly person for coming here 

EDIT: Post above me has some interesting points about aborting "faulty" (for lack of a better more tasteful word) fetuses.

Its very selfish and the decision is seldom made with this in mind - the parents decision is generally one of "I do not want to/cannot/will not take care of this baby".


----------



## Ames (Nov 28, 2011)

I believe that driving stick makes you a safer driver.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 28, 2011)

Babyfurs should be put in "Protective custody".


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Hearing people talk about aborting fetuses with genetic disorders "for their own good" makes me queasy. On one hand, I can see where it probably is the most humane option for some kids. On the other hand, where to draw the line is a very subjective matter, and almost all of the people I hear discussing the issue do not themselves have a genetic disorder. I do have one. I know that, depending on who was drawing the line, I would have been on the chopping block. This disease can be terrible. I know a woman with it who cannot lay down without suffocating because her sternum collapses. I know a girl with it who cannot stand without her hip dislocating. There are types of the disease that make a man's skin as thin and fragile as onion skin; it just peels right off. There are types that make you lucky to make it to your 20s for heart deformities. And always, always there is pain, pain, pain. Yet they persevere, they wish to live, they find their happinesses. I can tell you that most life enjoys living, handicap or no. It is rather sickeningly ableist to assume that a person does not still wish to live just because they are not able-bodied.
> 
> I believe in euthanasia--if the person in question consents to it. I don't think that anyone should be able to make my decision to live or die for me, short of a few particular circumstances, especially if they are not _personally_ familiar with my pain. (And so few of the people who bring this up have a debilitating genetic disorder of any kind, they speak from a place of such privilege.) I could not have expressed such a decision as a fetus. If I had to be aborted, then let me be aborted because the birth would kill my mother, or because she could not reasonably care for me, not for some weak ableist assumption about my will to live.



I'mma hug you.

I would have been on the block for having Hydrocephalus, but I got better. Here is to hoping that one day they can help you get better too.


----------



## Piroshki (Nov 28, 2011)

I believe that sex should be used for reproduction, and not so much for recreation. (On occasion, sure, but generally...)
Similarly, I don't think people should have sex before a certain age. The last thing we need is more unfit parents inadequately raising children.
I also think dicks, vaginas, boobs, and asses are gross. :I
/asexual

I disapprove of recreational drugs.
I think action and horror movies are boring.
I read the Twilight books and didn't dislike them.
I don't think famous young musicians/actors deserve the shitstorms that people give them just because they're jealous that they couldn't do that stuff at their age.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 28, 2011)

Piroshki said:


> I don't think famous young musicians/actors deserve the shitstorms that people give them just because they're jealous that they couldn't do that stuff at their age.


Dislike towards disingenuous artists, which may be of their own or their fanbase's doing, hardly means you're jealous of them.

Artists I love I envy.


----------



## Namba (Nov 28, 2011)

I believe the Grinch had it right at the beginning.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> ableist


So we have a name now?
Wait you were talking about _physical_ ability? My bad.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 28, 2011)

I believe Jim Carrey overdid his Grinch performance.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 28, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Wait, what's it now?
> 
> Have they, like, started doing the history of the paranormal or some shit now? Staring Bear Grylls?
> 
> /hopelessly off-topic


It's the Aliens-Bigfoot-Ghosts-Israel-Jesus-Bible-Nostradamus Channel With A Dash Of Hitler now.


----------



## Namba (Nov 28, 2011)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> I believe Jim Carrey overdid his Grinch performance.



It would've been cool if it was Robin Williams.


----------



## thewall (Nov 28, 2011)

Piroshki said:


> I believe that sex should be used for reproduction, and not so much for recreation. (On occasion, sure, but generally...)
> Similarly, I don't think people should have sex before a certain age. The last thing we need is more unfit parents inadequately raising children.



I didn't agree entirely with that post, but still...


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 28, 2011)

I believe that the actor for the Joker in "The Dark Knight" shouldn't have died.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 28, 2011)

I believe that the more often people invoke "Two wrongs don't make a right", the more likely it is that they weren't picked on enough as kids.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 28, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> So we have a name now?
> Wait you were talking about _physical_ ability? My bad.


Ableism is a fairly established term. I feel it is equally disgusting against both physical and mental disabilities, although my own disability is physical.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 28, 2011)

Who shall have the mantle for the most appalling beliefs?



Commie Bat said:


> I believe NATO and all other large alliences  should be disbanded.


I believe Russia should hand all of its  nuclear arsenal over to Finland in the name of world peace and start  acting more of a fair democracy. :wink:


----------



## Lobar (Nov 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Hearing people talk about aborting fetuses with genetic disorders "for their own good" makes me queasy. On one hand, I can see where it probably is the most humane option for some kids. On the other hand, where to draw the line is a very subjective matter, and almost all of the people I hear discussing the issue do not themselves have a genetic disorder. I do have one. I know that, depending on who was drawing the line, I would have been on the chopping block. This disease can be terrible. I know a woman with it who cannot lay down without suffocating because her sternum collapses. I know a girl with it who cannot stand without her hip dislocating. There are types of the disease that make a man's skin as thin and fragile as onion skin; it just peels right off. There are types that make you lucky to make it to your 20s for heart deformities. And always, always there is pain, pain, pain. Yet they persevere, they wish to live, they find their happinesses. I can tell you that most life enjoys living, handicap or no. It is rather sickeningly ableist to assume that a person does not still wish to live just because they are not able-bodied.
> 
> I believe in euthanasia--if the person in question consents to it. I don't think that anyone should be able to make my decision to live or die for me, short of a few particular circumstances, especially if they are not _personally_ familiar with my pain. (And so few of the people who bring this up have a debilitating genetic disorder of any kind, they speak from a place of such privilege.) I could not have expressed such a decision as a fetus. If I had to be aborted, then let me be aborted because the birth would kill my mother, or because she could not reasonably care for me, not for some weak ableist assumption about my will to live.



You're making a very emotional argument from personal consequences here.  The problem is that you conflate yourself as you are now with the zygote you grew from, and the plain fact of the matter is that when you were a zygote, you did not have a will to live, because you did not yet have a will.  From the perspective of a potential parent, I wouldn't want my child to live a life of constant pain, I'd rather try again and make sure there are no such unnecessary hardships.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 28, 2011)

Lobar said:


> You're making a very emotional argument from personal consequences here.  The problem is that you conflate yourself as you are now with the zygote you grew from, and the plain fact of the matter is that when you were a zygote, you did not have a will to live, because you did not yet have a will.  From the perspective of a potential parent, I wouldn't want my child to live a life of constant pain, I'd rather try again and make sure there are no such unnecessary hardships.


It makes appreciate life a lot more if you were a baby who probably would have been aborted given any other parent. I was born out of an affair and to this day I wonder if the dad who raised me wanted the abortion option and how close that may have come to happening. I know a few people who were the children of rape and it's a complicated emotion to live with. 

I understand that a zygote does not yet have the will to live, because it hasn't developed a thalamus yet capable of translating that kid of urge. But, still, you think about all the odds that you were even conceived with those two exact people, carried safely to term, and then when you have situations like this all the odds that you weren't just disposed off right on the spot. It's a really complicated emotion that makes you feel very lucky, very small, and reminds us that abortion is not just a "suck it out and be done with it no regrets" kind of deal. People who go through abortions always wonder "what if...?" when thinking of their zygotes possible potential. It doesn't change if they did it for reasons of ableism, either.

I can see where Ad Hoc is coming from, honestly.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 28, 2011)

Lobar said:


> You're making a very emotional argument from personal consequences here.  The problem is that you conflate yourself as you are now with the zygote you grew from, and the plain fact of the matter is that when you were a zygote, you did not have a will to live, because you did not yet have a will.  From the perspective of a potential parent, I wouldn't want my child to live a life of constant pain, I'd rather try again and make sure there are no such unnecessary hardships.


You are asking me to take impersonally a potential policy which would have wiped me from existence. Whether I was conscious then or not, destruction then is oblivion now, and the idea is fundamentally disturbing, it can never be not-disturbing for me. You also that that _you_ don't want your child to live with pain, but what would the child think when their alternative is death? I have pain but my life is no less valuable to me for it. I have pain but also joy. I wish to live. If you were ask me if I wished I'd been aborted, then I would say no. If I had to be aborted, let it be for the real needs of the mother, and not the assumed needs of mine.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 28, 2011)

I would've liked an option to not be born.


----------



## Piroshki (Nov 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Dislike towards disingenuous artists, which may be of their own or their fanbase's doing, hardly means you're jealous of them.
> 
> Artists I love I envy.



Disingenuous and young aren't the same thing, though.
I get that everyone has styles of music they don't like, and often they have good reasons for disliking artists, but sometimes it just gets ridiculous. Classic example, Justin Bieber: I'm not a fan, never really listened to his music, but I know it's really not that bad, and the shit the kid gets is monumental and unwarranted. I haven't paid much attention to what he's been up to lately (some babbiescandal?) but before whatever's been going around started going around, he actually seemed like a really decent person, yet people make fun of him more than Willow Smith and Rebecca Black combined, both of which have held the title for most hated song on the internet.

I just think that kind of hate is stupid, and I think it mostly is just a bunch of unsuccessful middle-aged people going, "He's so successful and he's only fourteen...* FUCK HIM I COULD HAVE TOTALLY DONE THAT* EXCEPT I SPent my teenage years masturbating in the corner to other people's wedding photos..."


----------



## Bliss (Nov 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I've asked you before what strategic and diplomatic needs, does Finland have, that it needs WMD's.


Deterrence, _obviously_. Might do that on behalf of all Nordics.

Pot, meet kettle. D:



Piroshki said:


> I just think that kind of hate is stupid, and I  think it mostly is just a bunch of unsuccessful middle-aged people  going, "He's so successful and he's only fourteen...* FUCK HIM I COULD HAVE TOTALLY DONE THAT* EXCEPT I SPent my teenage years masturbating in the corner to other people's wedding photos..."


I think you're _very_ mistaken. Middle-aged people don't know about Justin Bieber; haters are of his own supposed 'base'.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 28, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I would've liked an option to not be born.


When I was younger I thought similar things. If I were genuine about it, well, I have access to a shotgun, to a long rope and several tall climbable structures, to a highway and a railway; each could give me the same or similar outcome as not being born, yet I have always found enough joy in life to not act on these opportunities. Life given can always be taken later. Life taken can rarely be given back.


----------



## Piroshki (Nov 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I think you're _very_ mistaken. Middle-aged people don't know about Justin Bieber; haters are of his own supposed 'base'.



Fair enough, I don't know what they know about. Late teens and early twenties, then.
Bieber was just an example, though. I'm sure some of them have an irrational deep-seated hatred for someone else founded around a similar reason. I just think the fact that someone else was being constructive and working their way up to popularity while everyone else sits around watching TV, playing games, and wasting time is a ridiculous reason to hate someone.


----------



## Spatel (Nov 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Hearing people talk about aborting fetuses with genetic disorders "for their own good" makes me queasy. On one hand, I can see where it probably is the most humane option for some kids. On the other hand, where to draw the line is a very subjective matter, and almost all of the people I hear discussing the issue do not themselves have a genetic disorder. I do have one. I know that, depending on who was drawing the line, I would have been on the chopping block. This disease can be terrible. I know a woman with it who cannot lay down without suffocating because her sternum collapses. I know a girl with it who cannot stand without her hip dislocating. There are types of the disease that make a man's skin as thin and fragile as onion skin; it just peels right off. There are types that make you lucky to make it to your 20s for heart deformities. And always, always there is pain, pain, pain. Yet they persevere, they wish to live, they find their happinesses. I can tell you that most life enjoys living, handicap or no. It is rather sickeningly ableist to assume that a person does not still wish to live just because they are not able-bodied.
> 
> I believe in euthanasia--if the person in question consents to it. I don't think that anyone should be able to make my decision to live or die for me, short of a few particular circumstances, especially if they are not _personally_ familiar with my pain. (And so few of the people who bring this up have a debilitating genetic disorder of any kind, they speak from a place of such privilege.) I could not have expressed such a decision as a fetus. If I had to be aborted, then let me be aborted because the birth would kill my mother, or because she could not reasonably care for me, not for some weak ableist assumption about my will to live.



Good post.

However, I don't think aborting a fetus because you want the best for your kids is ableism. Ableism is when someone shows a contempt for the disabled who are already alive by depriving them of their rights, or making their lives unnecessarily harder.

I may not have a disorder of my own, but I do know what it's like to live with someone who does. In this case, a family member who was born perfectly healthy, but contracted an illness in childhood that left her severely mentally handicapped. Two family members close to me experienced this, actually. It becomes a tremendous burden on everyone around them. If you're a kid, and you grow up with a sibling let's say, or a parent who is this disabled, you lose some of your childhood having to take care of them. I think if any parent has the chance to prevent that kind of misery from occurring... seeing someone you love struggle their entire lives, that's a chance worth taking.



Piroshki said:


> I believe that sex should be used for  reproduction, and not so much for recreation. (On occasion, sure, but  generally...)
> Similarly, I don't think people should have sex before a certain age.  The last thing we need is more unfit parents inadequately raising  children.
> I also think dicks, vaginas, boobs, and asses are gross. :I
> /asexual
> ...



Hmm... I wonder what would humans do for recreation on your planet? 

---------------------

Since I've jumped in and argued with a couple people that posted their opinions, I'll post my own so others can take shots at me:

-Nobody should earn more than $100,000 a year, unless they work in medicine or education.
-In the distant future, I think ideally parents shouldn't raise their children. Instead, kids should be sent to government-run centers that raise them from an early age, kinda like the battle school in Ender's Game. 
-There are chemical cocktails that can temporarily change the sexual behaviors of fruit flies and even mice in lab tests. Some day perhaps these will become recreational drugs that make you gay-for-a-day, or vice versa, eliminating sexuality barriers and freeing everyone to date everyone else.

-Human parthenogenesis will probably be invented and perfected some time in the next couple hundred years. This would allow females to reproduce by fusing eggs, no sperm necessary. I think this creates a huge moral dilemma, because it creates such a vast power imbalance between men and women in the ability to reproduce. This could gradually lead to a reduction in the ratio of men to women in society, and relegation of the few men that are left to second class citizen status. I think the only logical answer to prevent this from spiraling into some kind of holocaust is to invent artificial wombs. Ironically, the technology that would save men from extinction is also the technology that would liberate women the most, since it would free them from having to carry children for 9 months. Unfortunately I think this technology will lag behind parthenogenesis by a substantial amount of time, since it is quite a bit harder. It could be too late by then.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 28, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I've mentioned deterence, and for that an entire stockpile is completely unnecessary and illogical.  You have to think about the logistical capacity for Finland to even maintain them, which currently is non-existent.


Fair enough. Give a few and destroy the rest.



> I also highly doubt Finlands government or it's surrounding neighbors would agree with WMD militarization, which in it's self could spark a small scale arm's race which would end rapidly sense Finland also lacks the production means.


As I said, I'm happy to share. It becomes outrageous only when countries like France and UK would 'disagree'. Though, may be I'm too honourable and straightforward for politics.



> Again
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I still take it that surrounding nations shouldn't drift too far apart from papa Putin's loving arms? (Id est: democratically choose for themselves.) It is true to the day everytime someone _dares_ to show interest to integrate more to the West, there's Russia shaking their finger and mumbling a bunch of hogwash about it being a 'security risk' for them, flashing new tariffs and moving troops a _liiittle _closer to borders. Friendly persuasion, am I right? 

Just pointing out your disregard towards NATO is a bit comical and ironic, whilst I might understand it from someone of an _underdog in the middle of boasting world powers_.

-

PS. Why can't you pay for your own plumbing from your huge gas and oil money instead of having us pump tens of millions of euros into it? :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 28, 2011)

I believe my words carry weight that would break a lesser man's jaw.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I believe my words carry weight that would break a lesser man's jaw.


Half of the time more like sphincter. :V


----------



## Piroshki (Nov 28, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Hmm... I wonder what would humans do for recreation on your planet?



Drawing, painting, playing music, listening to music, playing sports, reading, video games, traveling, jogging, swimming, watching television, playing board games, making someone sad online, spending time with family and friends; y'know, the kind of stuff you do as kids + the stuff you do now when you're not fucking or smoking something. There are an infinite number of things I can do besides sex and drugs.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 28, 2011)

Spatel said:


> However, I don't think aborting a fetus because you want the best for your kids is ableism. Ableism is when someone shows a contempt for the disabled who are  already alive by depriving them of their rights, or making their lives  unnecessarily harder.


No, I cannot feel anything but disturbed by this. Ableism is also the assumption that a disabled life is a terrible tragedy, something that it is better to die than experience, something that inherently has less meaning. You say you "want the best." Well, _living_ is what is best for me. I have pain, but I do not want to die, I do not wish that I had been nipped in the bud before I could have grown, I want to live. If the time comes that I do not want to live any more, I will make that decision and only I will, not some able person who assumed a disabled life is less worth living, is such a horrible unlivable shame and tragedy. I have pain always but also joy, I want to live. I am not _less_, I am not just a tragedy that could have been avoided. If had to be aborted then let it be for the rational real needs of the  mother (that she could not safely carry a child to term or could not  reasonably care for a disabled child/any child), not some assumption  that were I given a voice that I would prefer to die than live with  disability.

Maybe for some diseases it is the best option, I don't know, I acknowledged that in my first post on the issue. But that line is so subjective, I cannot feel at ease with it knowing that what side I fall upon is on the whim of someone who holds all power when I would hold none. Maybe it is for the best sometimes but where is the line drawn? That line is terrifying to someone like me. You will say this emotional and poor argument (and you are likely right)  but the destruction of people like me is the natural result of these  potential policies, this must be acknowledged, this must be faced. And maybe the opposite would create its own horrors, children living with terrible truly zero-quality-of-life diseases, but I have so very rarely heard these able-bodied proponents of aborting the disabled speak of the impact on my side of the coin.


----------



## Spatel (Nov 29, 2011)

Piroshki said:


> Drawing, painting, playing music, listening to music, playing sports, reading, video games, traveling, jogging, swimming, watching television, playing board games, making someone sad online, spending time with family and friends; y'know, the kind of stuff you do as kids + the stuff you do now when you're not fucking or smoking something. There are an infinite number of things I can do besides sex and drugs.



here's a novel idea: all of those things in addition to sex and drugs

and action and horror films... fuck anyone who can't appreciate a good cheesy horror film...


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 29, 2011)

I believe they are going to take me away. Ha ha!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 29, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe they are going to take me away. Ha ha!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA


Oh please.


I believe the people who think aliens are going to invade earth have been watching way too many sci-fi movies.  The only reason why a alien race would ever invade is if it's a non-sentient species, but then that would raise the question of how they'd get here in the first place.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 29, 2011)

Piroshki said:


> Drawing, painting, playing music, listening to music, playing sports, reading, video games, traveling, jogging, swimming, watching television, playing board games, making someone sad online, spending time with family and friends; y'know, the kind of stuff you do as kids + the stuff you do now when you're not fucking or smoking something. There are an infinite number of things I can do besides sex and drugs.


Good for you.

It doesn't make you better than anyone else so quit acting like it does. The rest of the world fucks for recreation and as an expression of love and affection as well, which I get for someone who is asexual that's difficult to understand but the whole, "Sex should only be for procreation!" will never, ever be realistic. And you're not better than everyone just because you aren't participating in what 90% of the world does.

 If you want to say, "I just don't believe _for myself_ that sex is okay unless it's to procreate" and you acted like you recognized that it's okay for other people to feel different than you do because you recognize you're abnormal, that's one thing. But it seems to me you're acting all smug about it and literally think this should be the case for everyone else. 

You're abnormal and everyone else will always be annoyed and feel like you're an obnoxious morally uptight person when you express this opinion. I'm just saying you might want to keep it to yourself from now on, even in this thread seeing as you're surrounded by people with huge sex drives.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 29, 2011)

I believe your wife has to give you sex once every 2 days.


----------



## Piroshki (Nov 29, 2011)

Spatel said:


> here's a novel idea: all of those things in addition to sex and drugs
> 
> and action and horror films... fuck anyone who can't appreciate a good cheesy horror film...



Or not.

And it's not that I think they're bad, I just find it hard to pay my fullest attention if something's not funny. :c Everyone's got stuff like that; one of my friends pretty much only watches horror movies, and thinks comedy movies are boring as hell. Not thrilling enough for her. We work together, right down the street from a theater, and we keep inviting each other to go to movies, but I think the only one we actually saw together was Toy Story 3, 'cause, c'mon, you can't NOT see that movie.



			
				Lacus said:
			
		

> Good for you.
> 
> It doesn't make you better than anyone else so quit acting like it does. The rest of the world fucks for recreation and as an expression of love and affection as well, which I get for someone who is asexual that's difficult to understand but the whole, "Sex should only be for procreation!" will never, ever be realistic. And you're not better than everyone just because you aren't participating in what 90% of the world does.
> 
> ...



I wasn't trying to make it seem like I thought it made me better than everyone else, sorry if I implied that. I _am_ an obnoxious, morally uptight person, but I'm not _that_ self-centered.

And I know it's unrealistic and abnormal. I do think it should be the case for everyone else (I'm aware that it never will be), and I expect that idea to be met with almost exclusively negative reactions, hence why I tend only to bring it up in threads like this one, "Things you believe that would appall others". Clearly, there are a few people who have found it appalling. But it's just a belief that some hypothetical situation would improve the world to an extent, no more far-fetched than hoping that some ineffective foreign government will change its ways, or that everyone on earth will convert to the same religion and live happily ever after.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 29, 2011)

It know it depends on the time of the year, but stores need to have more aisles open anytime of the year. Please.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 29, 2011)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> It know it depends on the time of the year, but stores need to have more aisles open anytime of the year. Please.


Also more openings, it's a pain to have to get one little thing down a aisle and there's forty people in the way.  If people can get in and out better it would help.


----------



## Unsilenced (Nov 29, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe your wife has to give you sex once every 2 days.



...

Seriously? 

...

Ughh...


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 29, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> ...
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> ...



My sentiments exactly.


----------



## eversleep (Nov 29, 2011)

Piroshki said:


> Or not.
> 
> And it's not that I think they're bad, I just find it hard to pay my fullest attention if something's not funny. :c Everyone's got stuff like that; one of my friends pretty much only watches horror movies, and thinks comedy movies are boring as hell. Not thrilling enough for her. We work together, right down the street from a theater, and we keep inviting each other to go to movies, but I think the only one we actually saw together was Toy Story 3, 'cause, c'mon, you can't NOT see that movie.
> 
> ...


You guys think not liking a certain movie genre is bad? I pretty much universally hate movies of any kind. To me, paying attention to something 2 hours long that I can't interact with is tedious and I don't like it. I haven't gone to see a movie since 2005. I usually only watch movies if I'm forced or someone is watching them and I'm coincidencially in the room.

And just ignore the haters. People be all uptight and shit without their "party and play". 
It's funny how some people are so paranoid, they always think that somebody has a superiority complex against them, when in reality they're just stating their opinion.


----------



## Spatel (Nov 29, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> No, I cannot feel anything but disturbed by this. Ableism is also the assumption that a disabled life is a terrible tragedy, something that it is better to die than experience, something that inherently has less meaning. You say you "want the best." Well, _living_ is what is best for me. I have pain, but I do not want to die, I do not wish that I had been nipped in the bud before I could have grown, I want to live. If the time comes that I do not want to live any more, I will make that decision and only I will, not some able person who assumed a disabled life is less worth living, is such a horrible unlivable shame and tragedy. I have pain always but also joy, I want to live. I am not _less_, I am not just a tragedy that could have been avoided. If had to be aborted then let it be for the rational real needs of the  mother (that she could not safely carry a child to term or could not  reasonably care for a disabled child/any child), not some assumption  that were I given a voice that I would prefer to die than live with  disability.
> 
> Maybe for some diseases it is the best option, I don't know, I acknowledged that in my first post on the issue. But that line is so subjective, I cannot feel at ease with it knowing that what side I fall upon is on the whim of someone who holds all power when I would hold none. Maybe it is for the best sometimes but where is the line drawn? That line is terrifying to someone like me. You will say this emotional and poor argument (and you are likely right)  but the destruction of people like me is the natural result of these  potential policies, this must be acknowledged, this must be faced. And maybe the opposite would create its own horrors, children living with terrible truly zero-quality-of-life diseases, but I have so very rarely heard these able-bodied proponents of aborting the disabled speak of the impact on my side of the coin.



Some of this actually strikes a chord with me because I've spent some time debating anti-natalists, and it caused me to reevaluate whether I considered my life worthwhile and how many other types of human experiences could be considered worthwhile.

There isn't a strict delineation. We are all varying levels of disabled. For instance, none of us can see infrared, or hear ultrasound, or lift twenty times our body weight on earth. We all die from cancer, heart disease, or dementia of some sort if we manage to avoid infections and falling pianos. So here's a thought experiment: suppose every human being had Huntington's. Nobody would consider it a disability if that were the case. Everyone would expect to die in their 30s or 40s if they were lucky. We wouldn't collectively decide 'okay we're too disabled as a species, we should stop existing'. Same thing if everybody had AIDS. That just becomes the human experience. There is probably a species out there in the galaxy somewhere that has it much worse than we do. They shit from the same hole they eat, their dick is some kind of bee stinger that injects acid that bores a hole in the female because there is no vagina, and then the stinger tears off and the male dies from blood loss after procreation. They live miserable fuck lives that consist of nothing but pain. There are species like this on earth, of course, but imagine if they were sentient. All of that trouble would be worth it, just to have that sentience. They wouldn't perceive their lives to be bad in any way. 

I'm not sure why I went off on that tangent. It has nothing to do with my argument. What I'm trying to say is I can sympathize with some of what you've said. Any sentient life that already exists is worth protecting, and that sentience is worth passing on, ultimately. Anyone who is disabled, unless they're profoundly mentally handicapped, can potentially have a life worth living. I'm sure your life is a hell of a lot better than many fully-abled humans living in 3rd world countries, or even developed countries that are extremely oppressive. You probably have more opportunities for your life than a woman in Saudi Arabia, or a child born in a concentration camp in North Korea. Always good to keep things in perspective...

So...

My issue is with your idea that you were an entity that deserved consideration before you existed. You wouldn't be around to care if no one had given birth to you. There were a million sperm in your dad's load, and there were an infinite number of different possible 'yous' that could have happened. Suppose your mother aborted you and then went on to have another child. Do this hypothetical child's rights weigh against yours? Your mother is not Hitler for not giving birth to every possible theoretical baby she could've given birth to. A woman's uterus is basically fetus auschwitz. The vast majority of embryos that form are terminated without them even knowing. Until your mind booted up and you actually became a person, which was months after you were born, there wasn't anything there with rights to protect. 

And this isn't personal. Same goes for me. If my parents had aborted me I wouldn't be around to care. 

So here's a thought experiment for you: you are a potential father. Your wife is going to have in-vitro fertilization with your sperm. But there's a catch: you are carrying Tay-Sachs disease, and so is your wife, and your children will have a 1 in 4 chance of getting it. Any kid who gets this disease will be profoundly mentally disabled and will die at an early age, after living a short, horrifically painful life. They can screen your sperm to exclude the ones that have Tay-Sachs.

You have a choice. Do you pick a sperm that won't have Tay-Sachs, or do you choose randomly? I want Ad Hoc to answer this question. Nobody else chip in.


----------



## Tapeworm (Nov 29, 2011)

Other animals also create, destroy make life and kill. Wouldn't that make them gods too?


----------



## Xeno (Nov 29, 2011)

I believe Pokemon exist


----------



## Recel (Nov 29, 2011)

Tapeworm said:


> Other animals also create, destroy make life and kill. Wouldn't that make them gods too?



Animals are visible, physical beings. They do visible, physical things.
God is an invisible, immaterial, pink unicorn. He does invisible, immaterial things.

Thus, animals are not gods.

/Flawless logic. :V


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 30, 2011)

Gods don't exist outside the minds of those who believe in them. 

/that conversation


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 30, 2011)

Spatel said:


> My issue is with your idea that you were an entity that deserved consideration before you existed. You wouldn't be around to care if no one had given birth to you. There were a million sperm in your dad's load, and there were an infinite number of different possible 'yous' that could have happened. Suppose your mother aborted you and then went on to have another child. Do this hypothetical child's rights weigh against yours? Your mother is not Hitler for not giving birth to every possible theoretical baby she could've given birth to. A woman's uterus is basically fetus auschwitz. The vast majority of embryos that form are terminated without them even knowing. Until your mind booted up and you actually became a person, which was months after you were born, there wasn't anything there with rights to protect.
> 
> And this isn't personal. Same goes for me. If my parents had aborted me I wouldn't be around to care.


The vast majority of those lost eggs and sperm are lost naturally without the consent and with only a very detached knowledge of the parents. That is absolutely different from the willful termination of an established, developing embryo. Do not get me wrong, I am pro-choice where the needs of the mother are concerned--but a medical abortion is a direct and intentional termination of potential life. It is not comparable to unconscious shedding of gametes and spontaneous abortions. 



I have more to say. Apologies for the spacing weirdness, but I'm . . . very hesitant to post the following. The preceding paragraph was written within minutes of reading your post, Spatel--these next ones were crafted much more slowly. I consulted a good and trusted friend about them at one point and we promptly got in a fight, something we rarely do. While my relationship with you is I think too detached to sustain such a thing (I do have a vice of anger and I think that has shown here somewhat, but it usually peters out before something turns into a real "fight"), but the experience reinforced my belief that it often takes a very particular relationship and a very long time to resolve disputes over issues such as these. FAF (and forums in general) only sporadically harbors such a thing. I am almost tempted to delete it all and declare a stalemate, but it is rather late in the game now. I suppose, if nothing else, exposure to different ideas is always good even if they may not be embraced quickly, in whole, or at all; for both sides. So here goes. 

I think that some of the disconnect here is that I don't really see much separation from myself as a fetus as I do from myself now, only a separation of time. My consciousness could not have arisen from any other clump of cells, that _was_ me, once. I did not know it then, but it was me. Yes, if I were destroyed at that point, I would not really be cognizant of it, but there are any number of ways I could be destroyed as I write this post and not really be cognizant of it; it is no less the destruction of an individuality just because you pick a particular point on the time line. If I can live, let me live. (Although I am generally pro-choice, more on that later.) 

And the next question is, well was that fastest sperm me, was that particular egg me? No, I don't think they were, by themselves. By themselves could not predictably become a person, and by themselves they both had infinite potential to become someone else completely by combining with a different egg/sperm. They became me, instead of someone else or no one at all, when the universe aligned to make that combination and allowed it to establish and grow. Yes, it could have been someone else, if only a different sperm was faster or a different egg had been dropped, or I could have died then and there if my mother's body rejected me without her consent; but it wasn't, it didn't, and I think all of that is irrelevant because it's not really realistically within our control. I know what you'll do next, why aren't we saving all the gametes? That a reduction to the absurd. We can't do that, saving every gamete would be a Herculean effort (if not completely impossible) and saving every possible combination of them is infinitely more unrealistic. It's out of our control. But when chances align to make a particular combination and allow it to live, choosing to abort is within our control. Sometimes the choice to abort is very ethical. Sometimes it's . . . not so clear cut. 

I'm straying into very uncomfortable territory. If we were to zoom out from this discussion and look at my overall feelings on abortion, they spell out "Mother knows best." I don't really think that someone who will never foreseeably become pregnant should be putting abortion restrictions on someone else who actually will have to deal with it. The mother-fetus relationship is one of the few where I think one person inarguably has more rights than the other, and that person is the mother. The fetus is a guest in her temple, and should it become a menace, she has every right to cast it out. I know three women who've had an abortion, actually helped one of them recover from the procedure, and I would not dare cast stones at their reasons. They acted in self-defense. 

But sometimes it is not self-defense, and this is one of those cases. The idea of a woman protecting herself does not bother me. The idea of willing and capable parents conceiving a child, being content with that, but then killing it because it doesn't not match their standard of a good life is what bothers me. I know that only a few of them would do so out that Eldritch abomination of a mentality to throw the "defects" to the wolves. I know that most would act with one or both of two slightly more digestible philosophies. The first is selfish, that they just don't want to see it, they don't want to deal with it. And maybe they really can't deal with it, for lack of personal resources or a social safety net; disability can be expensive. But if they can deal with it but still discard me because they simply don't want to see me, then there is no iron that could smooth away my snarl. The second is both better and worse--some kind-hearted, sweet-souled (and most likely able-bodied) individual  who just thinks it's better for me to die than suffer. I suppose at least their intentions are kind, but they do not seem to be aware of how viciously, murderously patronizing that is to me. I am happy to live, I do not want to die. I'll take care of it myself if I ever change my mind. Do not condescend to take that choice away from me "for my own good," O Strong Wise One, even if it is so kind and thoughtful to be at a point before I can feel or fear it. 



Spatel said:


> Until your mind booted up and you actually became a person, *which was months after you were born*,


Segue time. I quirked my brow at this. Newborns exhibit a will to live and individual behaviors basically as soon as they recover from the exhaustion of birth, I have seen this. Even developed fetuses exhibit variation in behavior. For example, I was a very placid a gentle fetus, whereas my brother was an aggressive and violent (sometimes painful) kicker, these had predictable mirrors in our grown behaviors. Even so, do you feel it is okay to kill a newborn in this months-long period before their "mind boots up"?



Spatel said:


> So here's a thought experiment for you: you are a potential father. Your wife is going to have in-vitro fertilization with your sperm. But there's a catch: you are carrying Tay-Sachs disease, and so is your wife, and your children will have a 1 in 4 chance of getting it. Any kid who gets this disease will be profoundly mentally disabled and will die at an early age, after living a short, horrifically painful life. They can screen your sperm to exclude the ones that have Tay-Sachs.
> 
> You have a choice. Do you pick a sperm that won't have Tay-Sachs, or do you choose randomly? I want Ad Hoc to answer this question. Nobody else chip in.


I said in my first post on the issue that there are diseases in which likely fall quite squarely into territory where it is best to euthanize. Tay-Sachs is surely one of them. My concern is for more subjective diseases such as my own, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome; where I know that it is worth living with but maybe some ableistic fool with all the power thinks it's better for me to die than live it. 

And that leads to the next question: swap EDS for Tay-Sachs, in your question. Actually that's a question that I ponder non-hypothetically, sort of. As it is, there is no available technology to screen for EDS. If there was? I would select a non-EDS gamete, why wouldn't I? I've already said what I have to say on gametes, they cannot ordinarily become a life without first becoming a particular combination. Trying to save every gamete/gamete combination is absurd, it's impossible, even if we had the technology to do so it would be completely unsustainable. So I don't feel much sorrow in letting the countless slip by, there is nothing that can be done for them anyway. 

But now, isn't it the same ugly ableism to select a non-disabled sperm over a disabled one? I suppose you're right, you've caught me, I too would rather that my child not have EDS. But I feel there is a line between not allowing one possible combination out of trillions ever happen, and willfully ending a combination that has already happened, that is already established and growing and can live. If by some strange alignment of the planets I did end up in an unplanned pregnancy situation, then I would not push for abortion on the basis of the child possibly having EDS. I know that it is livable, I would leave the choice to the child. 


Although, with that, I have stumbled upon where I would feel comfortable drawing a line on whether to abort a disabled child or not: Whether or not the child will ever have the agency to make an informed decision on whether it wishes to live or die. A Tay-Sachs child would not, for the mental deficiency and shortened lifespan; it's pointless to give it a choice it could never foreseeably exercise. An EDS child could, given time.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 30, 2011)

That was a beautiful speech Ad Hoc.


----------



## Spatel (Nov 30, 2011)

Hey, nothing for me? Eh, oh well. I guess I get to be the 'bad guy' again. 



Ad Hoc said:


> Segue time. I quirked my brow at this. Newborns  exhibit a will to live and individual behaviors basically as soon as  they recover from the exhaustion of birth, I have seen this. Even  developed fetuses exhibit variation in behavior. For example, I was a  very placid a gentle fetus, whereas my brother was an aggressive and  violent (sometimes painful) kicker, these had predictable mirrors in our  grown behaviors. Even so, do you feel it is okay to kill a newborn in  this months-long period before their "mind boots up"?



Yes, I think so. I posted it earlier. That was my original 'appalling opinion', and I'm not backing away from it. Instincts are not a personality. 3rd trimester fetuses display instincts, and that's a common anti-abortion argument. MRIs show that the activity in the brain changes dramatically after the baby is born. Initially there's no one home. The brain has to wire itself to interpret its environment, its stimuli, and begin to develop a personality from these stimuli. 3 months after? I'd say no. But immediately after birth? I don't see why not. I think it is very arbitrary that we draw birth as the cutoff for personhood, when the mental state of the baby is no different the day before and the day after birth. Not wanting to have the child would not be an acceptable excuse after birth. I think there are medical reasons that would make it humane to put newborns down in certain cases. 

For instance if it had harlequinn syndrome, yes absolutely. You can't screen prenatally for every possible horrible condition the child could be born with, and even then some will sneak through. 



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> The first is selfish, that they just don't want to see it, they don't  want to deal with it. And maybe they really can't deal with it, for lack  of personal resources or a social safety net; disability can be  expensive. But if they can deal with it but still discard me because  they simply don't want to see me, then there is no iron that could  smooth away my snarl. The second is both better and worse--some  kind-hearted, sweet-souled (and most likely able-bodied) individual  who  just thinks it's better for me to die than suffer. I suppose at least  their intentions are kind, but they do not seem to be aware of how  viciously, murderously patronizing that is to me.



My  problem with your argument is that you take it personally, when it  isn't. Discarding a fetus that bears a disability is not the same as  discarding an established human being with a life, and friends, and  people who look up to them. It isn't saying to someone "your life is not  worth living" it's saying "we can only raise so many children. We want  to make sure to maximize the chances the children we have will have  good lives". 

What  you're saying, sounds to me, like saying a family that moves to a good  school district thinks that kids growing up in a worse school district  have lives "not worth living". Obviously that's not true.



Ad Hoc said:


> I said in my first post on the issue that there  are diseases in which likely fall quite squarely into territory where it  is best to euthanize. Tay-Sachs is surely one of them. My concern is  for more subjective diseases such as my own, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome;  where I know that it is worth living with but maybe some ableistic fool  with all the power thinks it's better for me to die than live it.



I don't think there are any diseases that merit euthanasia later in life, unless they leave the sufferer brain-dead, in which case there's no one home so there's no reason to keep paying rent on the house. I'm only talking about abortion, pre-natal genetic screen, that kind of stuff. I'm talking about *preventing* someone from having the disease. The rest of this stuff is a strawman. If my kid had Ehlers-Danlos, I wouldn't lose sleep over it, unless it was a really severe case. If they had Multiple Sclerosis I would be more concerned. My grandmother had that, and it was horrible. The diseases that take away something you used to have are the worst, because you actually *feel* disabled and helpless. Even that isn't something worth euthanizing over. Like I said, nothing is.

But if I could prevent my kids from having it? Absolutely. That seems like a no-brainer.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 1, 2011)

^ I am not upset with devil's advocates (aka bad guys)

I am happy to listen to this debate.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 1, 2011)

I believe that I'm not a monster for believing that a species that has beaten all of its natural enemies into the dirt and reproduced beyond a sustainable limit must control its own quantity and quality. I also believe that the real 'monsters' are those who would wish billions of slow deaths from contagious disease and malnourishment upon us, and devastation upon Earth's biosphere.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 1, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Yes, I think so. I posted it earlier. That was my original 'appalling opinion', and I'm not backing away from it. Instincts are not a personality. 3rd trimester fetuses display instincts, and that's a common anti-abortion argument. MRIs show that the activity in the brain changes dramatically after the baby is born. Initially there's no one home. The brain has to wire itself to interpret its environment, its stimuli, and begin to develop a personality from these stimuli. 3 months after? I'd say no. But immediately after birth? I don't see why not. I think it is very arbitrary that we draw birth as the cutoff for personhood, when the mental state of the baby is no different the day before and the day after birth.


This just tells me we have a incredible difference in perspective. You think human life starts when it exhibits cognizance, I think it starts when it has become an individual thing on the path to cognizance. I don't think we can reconcile our opinions when we come from such different mindsets, and changing mindsets themselves usually take a particular relationship and a great deal of time. I'm going to continue explaining myself, but I no longer expect anything but a continuous back-and-forth until one of us gets bored/frustrated unless something really unexpected happens. At best I'm shooting for a change in the mind of onlookers, here. You're a smart guy, I do not question your intelligence and have agreed with you many times in the past, I just think this is impossible by human nature. Just putting that out there so we're on the same page. 



Spatel said:


> I think there are medical reasons that would make it humane to put newborns down in certain cases.
> 
> For instance if it had harlequinn syndrome, yes absolutely. You can't screen prenatally for every possible horrible condition the child could be born with, and even then some will sneak through.


I actually would agree with this to some extent, although only within the eventual-agency guidelines I laid out a post or two ago. 



Spatel said:


> My problem with your argument is that you take it personally, when it isn't. Discarding a fetus that bears a disability is not the same as discarding an established human being with a life, and friends, and people who look up to them. It isn't saying to someone "your life is not worth living" it's saying "we can only raise so many children. We want to make sure to maximize the chances the children we have will have good lives".


I don't think you've really read what I'm saying, I explained at some length why I can't-not take this personally. I don't put a lot of stock into the concept of souls, friend. If you destroy me as a fetus, I can only think that you have in fact destroyed me, because I have no faith that my consciousness is going to spring up out of a different fetus. If a seed is in the ground and germinating, ripping it up now or cutting it down later makes just about the same difference for the tree. I don't feel that my lack of cognizance at the time makes it alright--there are a number of ways I could die as we speak without really being cognizant of it, but just because I won't have an opportunity to think about it doesn't mean it's not unfortunate for me. What I can't-not read here is, "You won't see it coming so it's okay." (Barring impacts on friends, family, environment, etc., I'm talking about the impact on that individual life alone.)



Spatel said:


> What you're saying, sounds to me, like saying a family that moves to a good school district thinks that kids growing up in a worse school district have lives "not worth living". Obviously that's not true.


I think there's a pretty significant difference between seeking better education and taking a life. I can see what you're saying, but I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying, because really the only way I can make that metaphor connect with the opinion I'm trying to express is if the kids' options are to either A) go to the better school, or B) die. 



Spatel said:


> I don't think there are any diseases that merit euthanasia later in life, unless they leave the sufferer brain-dead, in which case there's no one home so there's no reason to keep paying rent on the house. I'm only talking about abortion, pre-natal genetic screen, that kind of stuff. I'm talking about *preventing* someone from having the disease. The rest of this stuff is a strawman. If my kid had Ehlers-Danlos, I wouldn't lose sleep over it, unless it was a really severe case. If they had Multiple Sclerosis I would be more concerned. My grandmother had that, and it was horrible. The diseases that take away something you used to have are the worst, because you actually *feel* disabled and helpless. Even that isn't something worth euthanizing over. Like I said, nothing is.


. . . Here I am baffled. You're willing to euthanize a fetus for having a disability, but not let adults make the decision for themselves? 



Spatel said:


> But if I could prevent my kids from having it? Absolutely. That seems like a no-brainer.


Unless you pre-screened the gametes, your hypothetical disabled kid's already got the disease. You've just drawn up a time frame in which it's okay to kill the kid for it. 



Spatel said:


> The diseases that take away something you used to have are the worst, because you actually *feel* disabled and helpless.


I would be careful saying that, that's subjective. I've been on both sides of that coin and I can tell you they're both pretty unpleasant. I used to be fairly athletic (I did martial arts and consistently scored in the top three of my dojo for kata performance; got #1 once)--now I can't run 20 feet without the risk of my lower extremities going into conniption fits, and it's all downhill from here. Yeah, that loss sets up me up drinking some nights. On the other hand, so does the knowledge that hey, maybe most other people don't have this thing where they can't go a day without inexplicable soreness everywhere. I wonder what _that's_ like. (But then, in the morning, I feed my sheep and read a bit and remember that life is basically good, for now, and if I ever decide it's not then I can deal with it then.) But I'm off-track. 



Grae Sparrowkin said:


> ^ I am not upset with devil's advocates (aka bad guys)


Aside from the killing newborns thing, he's no devil's advocate. Everyone else who's spoken about this issue here (and, for the most part, anywhere) is in support of him; I'm the only one on this thread directly supporting this position. You and Lacus expressed empathy but not agreement. It's unclear if Dragonfurry likes what I'm saying rather than how I'm saying it. (He didn't say it was right, he said it was pretty.) The closest anyone here comes to aiming at the same target I am are the absolute pro-lifers, but I'm pro-choice so we're actually not in alignment at all. You asked for appalling opinions, I gave you one--most people  (who aren't totally pro-life) have decided that culling disabled fetuses is the ethical thing to do, that anything else is a waste or a set-up for a life not worth living. 



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I believe that I'm not a monster for believing that a species that has beaten all of its natural enemies into the dirt and reproduced beyond a sustainable limit must control its own quantity and quality.


Overpopulation is a myth in the first world--when you factor out immigration, most first world nations have neutral or negative population growth. Underdeveloped nations are what contribute to the global population problem, and that's because they have poverty problems, not because they're up to their elbows in EDS kids. These culling programs would have an incredibly negligible impact on world population; if you're worried about overpopulation, your energies would be far better spent on the infrastructure issues impoverished nations have.


----------



## thewall (Dec 1, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I believe that I'm not a monster for believing that a species that has beaten all of its natural enemies into the dirt and reproduced beyond a sustainable limit must control its own quantity and quality. I also believe that the real 'monsters' are those who would wish billions of slow deaths from contagious disease and malnourishment upon us, and devastation upon Earth's biosphere.



Dude, overpopulation is complete bullshit.  Did you know that almost all first world countries have neutral or negative population growth?  So drastic, we should be more worried about lack of people.
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

In fact, environmentalism in general is bullshit.  Oh noes!  carbon dioxide will kill us all!  :V

Except:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 1, 2011)

^this isn't worthy of any particular response^


Ad Hoc said:


> Overpopulation is a myth in the first world--when you factor out immigration, most first world nations have neutral or negative population growth. Underdeveloped nations are what contribute to the global population problem, and that's because they have poverty problems, not because they're up to their elbows in EDS kids. These culling programs would have an incredibly negligible impact on world population; if you're worried about overpopulation, your energies would be far better spent on the infrastructure issues impoverished nations have.


You will notice that I didn't quote any of your posts within mine, and your response to it seems more in agreement than disagreement.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 1, 2011)

thewall said:


> Dude, overpopulation is complete bullshit.  Did you know that almost all first world countries have neutral or negative population growth?  So drastic, we should be more worried about lack of people.
> http://overpopulationisamyth.com/


That is correct but only as far as the firs-



thewall said:


> In fact, environmentalism in general is bullshit.  Oh noes!  carbon dioxide will kill us all!  :V
> 
> Except:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis


. . .

Fella. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels do shift over time; sometimes production outweighs use by flora. When they are higher, they correlate with a higher global temperature, which has unpredictable effects on global weather systems. This is a geological fact. What's in question is whether or not it's really on the rise right now, and if human activity is causing that rise.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You will notice that I didn't quote any of  your posts within mine, and your response to it seems more in agreement  than disagreement.


Mmmm. My apologies.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 1, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Fella. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels do shift over time; sometimes production outweighs use by flora. When they are higher, they result in a higher global temperature, which has unpredictable effects on global weather systems. This is a geological fact. What's in question is whether or not it's on the rise right now, and if human activity causing that rise.



Lies! We're entitled by God Almighty (lalalalaalalala!!!) to do as we please with the world and the soulless lesser creatures! SIlence the liberal! Derka derka, Isa jihad!


----------



## Onnes (Dec 1, 2011)

thewall said:


> Dude, overpopulation is complete bullshit.  Did you know that almost all first world countries have neutral or negative population growth?  So drastic, we should be more worried about lack of people. http://overpopulationisamyth.com/


  For the world as a whole, overpopulation is certainly not a myth. I don't think many of us would enjoy having to live with the kind population density seen in much of China. It's also absolutely disastrous for those of us who don't want to see the entire surface of the earth turned into human infrastructure. You also just linked to a nutty conservative think tank.  





> In fact, environmentalism in general is bullshit.  Oh noes!  carbon dioxide will kill us all!  :V  Except: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis


  This is now the stupidest thing I've seen all day. Please start here and proceed to read over the entirety of that site. There will be a test afterwards.  



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> Fella. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels do shift over time; sometimes  production outweighs use by flora. When they are higher, they correlate  with a higher global temperature, which has unpredictable effects on  global weather systems. This is a geological fact. What's in question is  whether or not it's really on the rise right now, and if human activity  is causing that rise.


  Among the relevant sciences there's really no question that the increase in CO2 is due to anthropogenic sources. Not only is it possible to estimate emissions due to fossil fuel combustion, but also there is simply no other relatively new source that even competes.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 1, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Among the relevant sciences there's really no question that the increase in CO2 is due to anthropogenic sources. Not only is it possible to estimate emissions due to fossil fuel combustion, but also there is simply no other relatively new source that even competes.


Oh, I do believe it's there and caused by humans; I live in one of those crazy families that has solar panels strapped to the house eh. I guess I was just trying to help the little dude out. I suppose it was just a reinforcement of ignorance though, my bad.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 1, 2011)

thewall said:


> Dude, overpopulation is complete bullshit.  Did you know that almost all first world countries have neutral or negative population growth?  So drastic, we should be more worried about lack of people.
> http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
> 
> In fact, environmentalism in general is bullshit.  Oh noes!  carbon dioxide will kill us all!  :V
> ...



Kit you may think this doesnt deserve a response but I think it does.

First of all the environmentalism isnt bullshit. If it was bullshit why do you think that so many people would be involved in it if it was bullshit. So the polar caps arent melting huh? So the polar bears are dying just because they wanna kill themselves?

You might wanna research your subject before you slander it. The fact that we are producing carbon dioxde more and more everyday is making the enviorment even worse. You want proof that carbon dioxde helps causes global warning? You need to look only Venus to understand the concept of the greenhouse effect. The fact that its atmosphere is 98% carbon dioxde shows us that it is trapping more heat in the planet making the planet uninhabitable(also its sulfuric fields dont help much either :V). Also venus is closer to the sun which gets it more light and heat faster than earth does. Now people will say oh that makes sense, but why doesnt it happen on Mars too? Well Mars also has mostly carbon dioxde in its atmostphere too, but it is too far away from the sun to get that much heat anyway. Also its core isnt spinning enough or something else(feel free to correct me on this part). Also I have been noticing this and you all might have too, but doesnt it seem that we are having harsher winters and summers?

Also when we are talking about over-population growth we are talking about big-countries like U.S.A, China, Russia, etc. Also we are running out of fresh water and the fact that we arent producing enough food for the world is more than proof enough When you say those third-world countries have declining populations, you arent taking in that fact that they dont have the medical standards that most successful countries have.

@Ad-Hoc I like what you are saying. It is just that you take the time to write these long speech's and you put your heart into them that make's you my hero. :3


----------



## Slyck (Dec 1, 2011)

If we can piss off at smokers and skagheads we should be able to piss off at fat people.
The death penalty should be used more often.
The more centrist, leftist, right-wing, what have you that you are the more you can be safely considered full of shit.
Those of some racial background are inferior by birth than those from others.
Your favorite news source? It's full of it.
You are not the one in control of your life.
Incest and bestiality should be completely legal everywhere.
Child porn isn't immoral any more than fetish X or fetish Y is, but it is just as gross to me and you.
Music is not completely subjective. It is possible to have superior taste.
Nearly nothing is fucking subjective.
There can't be world peace if some people in the world don't know about destruction.
You're not transgender you're crazy.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 1, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Slyck, I don't know about you man.



Judging from their other recent posts, in particular the one just deleted from the Young Suicide thread, I'm fairly sure Slyck is beyond redemption.


----------



## eversleep (Dec 1, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Judging from their other recent posts, in particular the one just deleted from the Young Suicide thread, I'm fairly sure Slyck is beyond redemption.


He be trollin'.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 1, 2011)

So no one is gonna respond to my opinion?(hoping that Ad-Hoc would do it)


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 1, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> You have to be quite a special individual for the graciuos presence of Ad Hoc, to reply to your post.



Well I thought My repsonse to thewall was pretty good. I just wanted to see what Ad Hoc thought of it.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 1, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> You have to be quite a special individual for the graciuos presence of Ad Hoc, to reply to your post.


Where did this horse beneath me come from, and why is it so high? :< 



Dragonfurry said:


> Well I thought My repsonse to thewall was pretty good. I just wanted to see what Ad Hoc thought of it.


Well to tell you the truth it's pretty unusual for anyone to actually post something along the lines of "that was a good post/etc.," Not that it's wrong or that you should feel embarrassed that you did it, it's sweet that you did it, it's just really not common. I really wouldn't expect it to happen for any given post. Typically the most you'll get is a couple This's. Most of the time when people respond, it is in fact for the purpose of being critical. Such is FAF, and most forums in general really. It was a pretty decent post you made. I didn't really find anything particularly disagreeable about it, so I didn't feel particularly spurred to comment on it. It wasn't anything personal.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 1, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Where did this horse beneath me come from, and why is it so high? :<
> 
> 
> Well to tell you the truth it's pretty unusual for anyone to actually post something along the lines of "that was a good post/etc.," Not that it's wrong or that you should feel embarrassed that you did it, it's sweet that you did it, it's just really not common. I really wouldn't expect it to happen for any given post. Typically the most you'll get is a couple This's. Most of the time when people respond, it is in fact for the purpose of being critical. Such is FAF, and most forums in general really. It was a pretty decent post you made. I didn't really find anything particularly disagreeable about it, so I didn't feel particularly spurred to comment on it. It wasn't anything personal.



Sweet thank you Ad-Hoc. It took me 15 minutes to write that. Also my information on the planets and enviorvment comes from years of research and dedication.


----------



## Spatel (Dec 2, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> This just tells me we have a incredible difference in perspective. You think human life starts when it exhibits cognizance, I think it starts when it has become an individual thing on the path to cognizance. I don't think we can reconcile our opinions when we come from such different mindsets, and changing mindsets themselves usually take a particular relationship and a great deal of time. I'm going to continue explaining myself, but I no longer expect anything but a continuous back-and-forth until one of us gets bored/frustrated unless something really unexpected happens. At best I'm shooting for a change in the mind of onlookers, here. You're a smart guy, I do not question your intelligence and have agreed with you many times in the past, I just think this is impossible by human nature. Just putting that out there so we're on the same page.



I can tell from your responses that you're a sane, reasonable, intellectual person--the kind of person who could change their mind about anything if a sufficient amount of evidence came along to justify it. I am too, and even though I do have some emotional attachments to my positions, I can recognize a tipping point where I would be forced to change my mind, even about the opinions I hold on to the most dearly. It's a steep climb to get there but it has been done before.

So I'm going to make one last-ditch attempt, and if it goes nowhere I'm totally done with this. I agree--it's too tedious. I'd rather get back to mocking other people's terrible opinions.

So...

I think your opinion is irreconcilable with a pro-choice ideology. How can you support any abortions at all if you think a human life begins at conception, complete with individuality, and all the rights that come with it?

Let me guess... You think it's okay in cases of rape; I get that. But why should that be different? Why is that child, conceived without consent, less deserving of rights than a child that wasn't? The child didn't rape the mother; the rapist did. The child is a human being with potential, who could grow up to live a great life, who has every right to their individual experience that could not be duplicated by aborting and having another kid, any more than any of your siblings could be a replacement for you. One thing that's worse than rape is murder. If you really think life begins at conception, you should be pro-life, no exceptions.

You've stated that you think there are some cases where aborting a disabled fetus could be humane. Would you be willing to elaborate where you think the cutoff should be? 

It seems like you're not necessarily arguing a strong ban. You don't sound like you think the government should step in to prevent parents from deciding to abort a fetus if it's disabled, you just want to be able to look down on them if they do.

Sorry I didn't respond to the multi-quotes. I'm just trying to keep my posts down to a reasonable length, so I'm picking the most important things. k?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 2, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Nah, it was just joke, and I've come to enjoy the things you post, and found that you are a very leveled person. So I really don't know where the horse came from.


Ahaha, it's okay fella, no harm taken. You're still my Commie Bro. No homo.



Dragonfurry said:


> Sweet thank you Ad-Hoc. It took me 15 minutes to write that. Also my information on the planets and enviorvment comes from years of research and dedication.


Very good. It is good to take pride in one's writing and seek to improve it. 



Spatel said:


> Let me guess... You think it's okay in cases of rape; I get that. But why should that be different? Why is that child, conceived without consent, less deserving of rights than a child that wasn't? The child didn't rape the mother; the rapist did. The child is a human being with potential, who could grow up to live a great life, who has every right to their individual experience that could not be duplicated by aborting and having another kid, any more than any of your siblings could be a replacement for you. One thing that's worse than rape is murder. If you really think life begins at conception, you should be pro-life, no exceptions.


I sort of explained this in that very-long post last page, although perhaps not very clearly. I think that the mother-fetus relationship is one of the only human relationships in which one person inarguably has more rights than the other, that person being the mother, because her body and her life are so very impacted by the fetus. There actually was a (very regrettable, embarrassing) period of time where I thought that abortion was only really acceptable if the mother's life was threatened, and for all else there is always adoption. Then my friend, the one who I helped recover from the procedure, had hers, and I saw that I was wrong. We had no evidence that coming to term would have killed her, but I think it would have ruined her physically--she carries a lot of health problems from struggles with anorexia. Pregnancy is hard, birth is dangerous, complications are more common than anyone realizes, even for healthy mothers. Psychologically she would have been wrecked as well, not just for her own demons but also because her life circumstances were aligned such that her father would have cast her out on the street for being pregnant. (I can't even imagine the resulting psychological pain from a rape pregnancy.) Due to some reforms under Governor Thompson (and now again under Governor Walker, although that wasn't relevant at the time), Wisconsin's welfare programs are pretty much bullshit; her having a safe place to fall was very unlikely. Even if she gave the child up for adoption--and this forgets the damage of the pregnancy and birth itself; note that without her father she would have no health insurance--it would have absolutely ruined her, to have that child.  

We don't force anyone to tolerate that sort of physical, emotional, economic destruction in any other relationship. When a woman is in such a relationship, we don't say, "Wait nine months for it to be over and possibly face life-long consequences anyway." We do what we can to get her out of the situation as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the mother can't tell the fetus to get off the couch and get a job; can't call the cops to come arrest the fetus; can't run off to a shelter to hide from the fetus; can't do any of the things one would normally do in response to such a situation. No way out but a forceful eviction, and sadly that means the end for the fetus until that artificial womb you were talking about comes around. It sucks because the fetus isn't doing any of this intentionally, but even so it has become a definite malignant force in the mother's life, and there's no other way to really deal with that. I think that allowing the mother to defend herself from that is very different from capable and willing parent suddenly changing their mind because the fetus isn't quite up to snuff. 



Spatel said:


> You've stated that you think there are some cases where aborting a disabled fetus could be humane. Would you be willing to elaborate where you think the cutoff should be?


Awh you really aren't readin', you silly lizard. Or maybe you forgot. I actually did explain that and pretty clearly, I think. It's in the long post of the last page, very last paragraph. 



Spatel said:


> It seems like you're not necessarily arguing a strong ban. You don't sound like you think the government should step in to prevent parents from deciding to abort a fetus if it's disabled, you just want to be able to look down on them if they do.


To tell you the truth I might appreciate such a ban, except that I don't think it could be implemented without either being ineffective or infringing on the mother's right to choose on other grounds. So it goes. And look down on? I'm looking for a shift in how society views my existence. They seem to think it's better for me to not be born on account of a disease that I personally know is ridiculous to nonconsensually take a life over.


----------



## Bliss (Dec 2, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Yeah about that.......NO


_HELL YES._ If I had a twin... >:C

PS. Batty boy, you never answered my question:



> Why can't you pay for your own plumbing from your huge gas and oil money instead of having us pump tens of millions of euros into it? :V


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 2, 2011)

Slyck said:


> The more centrist, leftist, right-wing, what have you that you are the more you can be safely considered full of shit.



So whatever point you are on the spectrum, the more you're on it the more...wai...I 

...

Fuck logic.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 2, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> So whatever point you are on the spectrum, the more you're on it the more...wai...I
> 
> ...
> 
> Fuck logic.


Maybe you're supposed to be apolitical? Or something weird where you have a perfect balance of extreme-left and extreme-right positions, where you can't be called center any more than a chessboard can be called gray.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 2, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Maybe you're supposed to be apolitical? Or something weird where you have a perfect balance of extreme-left and extreme-right positions, where you can't be called center any more than a chessboard can be called gray.



If you took a huge chessboard pattern, zoomed out far enough, took a picture, then lowered the resolution so that each pixel would be more than one square...

It would be gray. 

There's a philosophical point in there somewhere but it has nothing to do with the present situation. 


Anyways, it really sounds like what's-his-face was just trying really hard to think of ways to offend everyone. Saying "hate ALL THE VIEWS" is a good way to cover your assbases.


----------



## Namba (Dec 2, 2011)

I believe that a Wednsday without any rain is a dry hump day.


----------



## Spatel (Dec 3, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I sort of explained this in that very-long post last page, although perhaps not very clearly. I think that the mother-fetus relationship is one of the only human relationships in which one person inarguably has more rights than the other, that person being the mother, because her body and her life are so very impacted by the fetus.



The fetus's life and body are just as impacted by the mother. No human being should have less rights than another. To suggest that one does in this case suggests that it isn't quite a human being yet.

You can't just kill someone if their existence inconveniences you. Yes, we allow self-defense, but only if you can prove your attacker posed an imminent, inevitable threat to your life, and that your only way of stopping them was to kill them (or that killing them was not your intention but happened due to forces mitigating circumstances beyond your control). 

Your opinion is going to have to change about one of two things if you want to be consistent. 
-Either: you apply your doctrine that human life begins at conception equally to all fetuses, and ban abortions except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. 
-Or: you admit that the scientific evidence that fetuses are not human yet and don't need to have the same rights, and that they should still be considered part of the mother--in which case she has every right to choose what happens to them.

-You've already stated that you might be okay with preventing genetic diseases by screening sperm/eggs.
-You've stated that there are certain kinds of genetic diseases which *are* bad enough to merit preventing.
-This is like... 80% of the argument here that we agree on. It's the fine details we're disagreeing on. So it's a matter of convincing you that abortion is just as preventative as screening gametes, and determining where that cutoff point should be, where a disease becomes bad enough to merit taking a proactive role to prevent it.

 Killing someone is bad because it deprives them of something they have. They are connected to their life and their memories and they have a will to preserve themselves. A fetus doesn't. You're dictating morality based on preventing a future human life from happening--something which isn't a crime. I can't just go up to a woman and say "some day you'll bear my children. One of them will be called Ryan. Ryan will be a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist, and a lady-pleasing billionaire. Ryan will have friends, and a great sense of humor, and will make everyone happy. Ryan wants to live. Ryan is looking back at his mother 30 years from now and begging her to let him come into existence. How dare you. You are a monster for not taking my hot cock up your vagina and making Ryan happen." There is a moral responsibility for the human race to preserve itself and create new humans, but there isn't a moral responsibility to make any particular individual emerge, because you can't predict the future like that. Obviously I'm full of shit, and Ryan isn't going to exist, and I'd be pretty surprised if my genes could ever make it that far anyway. 

Ryan couldn't care less that he isn't going to exist. And similarly, if you were aborted, you wouldn't be around to care, because you were aborted! If someone came up and killed you right now, it would be a very different. You would care quite a lot about losing your life, and you would spend your last moments in misery knowing someone is about to take your future away from you. A fetus about to be aborted would not care. So the morality in these two situations is objectively different. You cannot *seriously* elevate abortion to murder.

One last point...

Preventing people in the future from having a genetic disorder is not a personal attack on everyone that has ever carried that disorder in history beforehand, and I think by saying so you're reducing those people (including yourself ironically) to their disorders. ALS is a horrible thing to have; I wouldn't want my kids to have it, but that doesn't mean I think Stephen Hawking has a life "not worth living". He's done great things despite his condition. That's the operative word - despite. Stephen Hawking is a person with a complicated personality; he is not his disease. He overcame adversity in his life, which is an admirable trait, but it would be horrendous to force someone else to overcome that kind of adversity when they need not. If you know that your kid is going to have some horrible condition like ALS, and you have the option of aborting and starting over and refuse it, you are creating unnecessary suffering and putting it into the world.



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> Awh you really aren't readin', you silly lizard. Or maybe you forgot. I actually did explain that and pretty clearly, I think. It's in the long post of the last page, very last paragraph.


Well you're more than welcome to copy-paste it then.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 4, 2011)

Spatel said:


> You can't just kill someone if their existence inconveniences you. Yes, we allow self-defense, but only if you can prove your attacker posed an imminent, inevitable threat to your life, and that *your only way of stopping them was to kill them* (or that killing them was not your intention but happened due to forces mitigating circumstances beyond your control).


Actually, not really. If someone has invaded your home, if they have become a threat to your health and livelihood, it often is considered fully acceptable to take lethal action if there is no other option, even if they are attacking your livelihood rather than your life. We're not talking about an inconvenience (although I, too, once considered pregnancy to be so innocuous), we're talking about a severe invasion of the mother's life and there's no other way to handle it. (Basically as stated in the part that I bolded. There is no other way to stop it.)



Spatel said:


> -Or: you admit that the scientific evidence that fetuses are not human yet and don't need to have the same rights, and that they should still be considered part of the mother--in which case she has every right to choose what happens to them.


What science? Science makes no claims about souls, this is largely subjective. There isn't even a non-contested definition of life. It's genetically human and has every capacity to become a functioning human. If reason is the determining factor for humanity, well: A chick is not an un-bird because it cannot fly yet. 

You're going to bring up the "but why not spare gametes then" argument, which I have already explained: It is beyond realistic, it is beyond our control, it is a reduction to the absurd. It is like saying that, if we ask a person to feed a starving man immediately on their doorstep, then we might as well ask them to feed all starving people everywhere. 



Spatel said:


> Killing someone is bad because it deprives them of something they have. They are connected to their life and their memories and they have a will to preserve themselves. A fetus doesn't. You're dictating morality based on preventing a future human life from happening--something which isn't a crime. I can't just go up to a woman and say "some day you'll bear my children. One of them will be called Ryan. Ryan will be a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist, and a lady-pleasing billionaire. Ryan will have friends, and a great sense of humor, and will make everyone happy. Ryan wants to live. Ryan is looking back at his mother 30 years from now and begging her to let him come into existence. How dare you. You are a monster for not taking my hot cock up your vagina and making Ryan happen." There is a moral responsibility for the human race to preserve itself and create new humans, but there isn't a moral responsibility to make any particular individual emerge, because you can't predict the future like that. Obviously I'm full of shit, and Ryan isn't going to exist, and I'd be pretty surprised if my genes could ever make it that far anyway.


First, as far as the cock in vagina bit, that is the "but why not spare gametes then" argument, which I have already explained: It is beyond realistic, it is beyond our control, it is a reduction to the absurd. 

As for Ryan, he probably won't be most of those things. We can't accurately make those predictions about a 5-year-old, much less a fetus. But I can guarantee that he will want to live, and if not, he can arrange to fix that himself. 



Spatel said:


> Ryan couldn't care less that he isn't going to exist. And similarly, if you were aborted, you wouldn't be around to care, because you were aborted! If someone came up and killed you right now, it would be a very different. You would care quite a lot about losing your life, and you would spend your last moments in misery knowing someone is about to take your future away from you. A fetus about to be aborted would not care. So the morality in these two situations is objectively different. You cannot seriously elevate abortion to murder.


Someone could sneak into my room as I sleep with a gun and, if they were very quiet and careful, I would not be able to care about that either. My family and friends would care, sure, but we're talking about the impact on the individual. One of the legs of your argument seems to be the idea that it is acceptable because the individual is helplessly ignorant. 

Furthermore I don't believe I would suffer by being aborted; if I have said so, I misspoke. Unless it was very late in development, I would not have the nerves or endocrine system with which to have such sensations, I know that. What I take issue with this is ableist assumption that it's okay to take my choice to live or die, a choice I could realistically exercise just given enough time, on account of me being a "defect."



Spatel said:


> Preventing people in the future from having a genetic disorder is not a personal attack on everyone that has ever carried that disorder in history beforehand. ALS is a horrible thing to have; I wouldn't want my kids to have it, but that doesn't mean I think Stephen Hawking has a life "not worth living". He's done great things despite his condition. That's the operative word - despite. Stephen Hawking is a person with a complicated personality; he is not his disease. He overcame adversity in his life, which is an admirable trait, but it would be horrendous to force someone else to overcome that kind of adversity when they need not. If you know that your kid is going to have some horrible condition like ALS, and you have the option of aborting and starting over and refuse it, you are creating unnecessary suffering and putting it into the world.


No, Spatel, I cannot not-take it personally, I have explained this. In a theoretical situation in which I were your child and you detected that I had EDS sometime between my conception and (in your case) three months after my birth: My individuality has been created, it can come from no other place, and you are destroying it because of a disease that I am actually happier to live with than be killed on account of. If I prefer not to suffer any longer, I can exercise my own agency on the matter. (Stephen Hawking has had 30 years to do so since onset of his symptoms; I think he has made his position clear.) You said yourself, we disabled are more than our diseases, yet the only loss you care about in this picture is the loss of that disease. Aborting us does not simply remove our suffering, but our individualities as a whole. Conceiving children again does not recreate us, it creates different people, and as you said before: My sibling is no replacement for me. (However, my theoretical sibling is, at the time of my hypothetical destruction, two isolated gametes: I have already explained my position on gametes.) 

This is where we get back to that fundamental divide in perspectives. You feel the personhood counts only when it has flowered; I feel it begins when the individuality is established and progressing. 



Spatel said:


> -You've stated that there are certain kinds of genetic diseases which *are* bad enough to merit preventing.
> (. . .)
> Well you're more than welcome to copy-paste it then.


Now you have disappointed me Spatel, and I have held you in some esteem in the past and throughout this conversation. You haven't read what I'm saying, and here you are putting the responsibility on me for that. If you're going to pull a, "too long; I didn't read," at least have the decency to say so. I would understand if it were easier to miss, but it was its own paragraph and very clear. Go back and read it--long post, last page, last paragraph. Do not respond to me again if you are not reading and actually considering what I am saying. (Not necessarily agreeing, not necessarily responding to every little piece, but considering well enough at least to remember when it does come up again.)


EDIT:
You talk about preventing suffering. Honestly, these are just about the only diseases  where society even considers preemptively euthanizing the individual  without their consent. (I mean, barring some highly contagious diseases,  but that's less about "protecting" that person and more about  protecting society.) Sure, there's no "cure" (well, actually some  genetic disorders do have easy fixes), but there are a lot of diseases  where there is/was no developed cure. And what is to say there will be  no cure, with how many eyes science and medicine have on gene therapy?  There's already been one completely successful genetic therapy treatment for genetically blind dogs (it just isn't as effective for older dogs), and some preliminary findings of it treating immune disorders in children. You yourself have expressed total sureness in the development of gene therapy and similar treatments, in other threads. Long way to go? God, yes--but this seems to be just about the only area  of disease where it seems acceptable to treat death as the only possible cure, even though there are a lot of other non-genetic diseases that we also have no current cure for.


----------



## Spatel (Dec 4, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Actually, not really. If someone has invaded your home, if they have become a threat to your health and livelihood, *it often is considered fully acceptable to take lethal action* if there is no other option, even if they are attacking your livelihood rather than your life. We're not talking about an inconvenience (although I, too, once considered pregnancy to be so innocuous), we're talking about a severe invasion of the mother's life and there's no other way to handle it. (Basically as stated in the part that I bolded. There is no other way to stop it.)


It shouldn't be acceptable. This principle is a testament to our broken justice system, not actual morality. Lives can be weighed against lives, but not property, not the creature comforts of others. 



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> What science? Science makes no claims about souls, this is largely subjective. There isn't even a non-contested definition of life. It's genetically human and has every capacity to become a functioning human. If reason is the determining factor for humanity, well: A chick is not an un-bird because it cannot fly yet.


Killing a chick would be comparable to killing a human child, not an embryo, wouldn't it? Smashing an egg would be a better analogy. 



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> As for Ryan, he probably won't be most of those things. We can't accurately make those predictions about a 5-year-old, much less a fetus. But I can guarantee that he will want to live, and if not, he can arrange to fix that himself.


Just because someone would want to live if they were created doesn't mean anyone has a moral obligation to bring them into existence. 



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> Someone could sneak into my room as I sleep with a gun and, if they were very quiet and careful, I would not be able to care about that either. My family and friends would care, sure, but we're talking about the impact on the individual. One of the legs of your argument seems to be the idea that it is acceptable because the individual is helplessly ignorant.


That's true though. It would be more acceptable if they killed you in your sleep than if they killed you while you were awake and cognizant of what was going on. It would still be murder. But don't think that this is the only reason aborting is 'less immoral' than murder. There is a huge difference in the morality of killing someone when they're in their mid-20s vs when they're in utero. In the former case, they're established. 20 years of resources have been sunk into their existence. They have emotional ties to the outside universe. There are people that would care about them; people that would miss them. Killing them would make those 20 years of their life pointless, because their hopes for having a complete, fulfilling life were built up and then smashed. Killing them in utero only makes a few months of an embryo's existence pointless. At the same time killing someone late in life is also less bad but clearly not as terrible, since they have gotten to live most of their life. You could make a bell curve that charts the relative 'badness' of killing someone at different points in their lives, and at the very beginning, and at the very very end, the curve dips to zero.



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> No, Spatel, I cannot not-take it personally, I have explained this. In a theoretical situation in which I were your child and you detected that I had EDS sometime between my conception and (in your case) three months after my birth: *(1)*My individuality has been created, it can come from no other place, and you are destroying it because of a disease that I am actually happier to live with than be killed on account of. If I prefer not to suffer any longer, I can exercise my own agency on the matter. (Stephen Hawking has had 30 years to do so since onset of his symptoms; I think he has made his position clear.) You said yourself, we disabled are more than our diseases, yet the only loss you care about in this picture is the loss of that disease. *(2)*Aborting us does not simply remove our suffering, but our individualities as a whole. Conceiving children again does not recreate us, it creates different people, and as you said before: My sibling is no replacement for me. (However, my theoretical sibling is, at the time of my hypothetical destruction, two isolated gametes: I have already explained my position on gametes.)



*(1)*No, it hasn't. Your individuality would not have been created yet. Most of that individuality would come from your experiences as a child, growing up. You are the software running on the hardware that is your brain. If the software isn't there yet, then there's very little morally wrong with destroying the hardware. Preventing an individual from existing is not a crime. Ryan can't care if he doesn't exist. Choosing the hardware to install the software on is not a crime.

For the same reason that you consider it a reduction to the absurd to raise every gamete, it is a reduction to the absurd to morally compel someone to raise every embryo. An embryo is just a combination of gametes. There are an infinite number of possible embryos that could've happened. Your existence was a random occurrence. One embryo is no more special than another simply because it came first when mommy and daddy started  playing vagina-yahtzee with their genes.

No potential human life has more right to exist than any other potential human life. We all weigh equally against each other, at least initially. Suppose two parents want to have a child. On their first try, they create embryo A. If they are dissatisfied with A, they will abort it and create B. If they are not dissatisfied with A, they will not have another child. So why, in your opinion, does A have more of a right to exist than B? Because it came first? What gives you the gall to say A's life is more valuable than B's?

*(2)*Yes it does remove suffering. No, it does not remove individuals. If Hawking's parents had aborted him, the next kid they had probably would've been named Stephen Hawking anyway, and could've just as easily gone on to become a world-changing astrophysicist. Who knows. Different person? Sure. But as I've said before, many many times, one potential human's future is worth no less than another's. They are exchangeable.



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> This is where we get back to that fundamental divide in perspectives. You feel the personhood counts only when it has flowered; I feel it begins when the individuality is established and progressing.


We both think the latter. 



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> Now you have disappointed me Spatel


I cannot copy and paste something you didn't say, since it isn't there. You only made vague statements.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 4, 2011)

Here is my opinion on world politics, Fuck China.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 4, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I cannot copy and paste something you didn't say, since it isn't there. You only made vague statements.


No, I'm done. You aren't reading what I'm saying, you are fundamentally disrespecting me by responding without admitting that. It is right here, at the end, I tol you TWICE where to find it. (Long post last page last paragraph.) Since you are too lazy to go find it, to have read it in the first place, here it is:

"Although, with that, I have stumbled upon where I would feel comfortable  drawing a line on whether to abort a disabled child or not: Whether or  not the child will ever have the agency to make an informed decision on  whether it wishes to live or die. A Tay-Sachs child would not, for the  mental deficiency and shortened lifespan; it's pointless to give it a  choice it could never foreseeably exercise. An EDS child could, given  time."

Clear enough bud? I'm not giving the your post a response, you have not actually being reading mine. (Note that by "reading" I do not expect agreement or a response to every little bit. I do expect you to be reading closely enough to actually remember it when it is clearly spelled out.) I very, very rarely say this about any person as I feel it is a cruel thing to say, but you are not worth my time.



EDIT: I do not feel backed into a corner and this is not a retreat. I would be content with picking this conversation up again with someone else. (Lobar? I like Lobar, although if you're busy that's fine too.) I would even respond to Spatel's post if the new person just said, "I agree with Spatel's last post," as I have read it and do not feel particularly intellectually threatened by it. (Although I would expect they have a little more commitment to the discussion than to just say that and then leave.) I will no longer engage Spatel as I have evidence that he does not respect his opponents enough to actually read and remember what they are saying. I ask that a new person would go back and re-read what has been said before engaging me. I'm not wasting words on someone who has blatantly refused to read them. And again, by "reading" I do not mean agreeing or responding to ever bit, just considering long to actually comprehend and remember.


----------



## Alstor (Dec 4, 2011)

The only differences between FAF and other furry circlejerks is that FAF is more self-centered and full of itself.
Using MyFaceWhen doesn't make you funny. You're just unoriginal.
The "good things FAF does" are just regular good deeds that FAF blows out of proportion.
Being funny by raging was soooooo last year, and if you can somehow become popular by that, then God help the community that admires you.


----------



## Spatel (Dec 4, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> No, I'm done. You aren't reading what I'm saying, you are fundamentally disrespecting me by responding without admitting that. It is right here, at the end, I tol you TWICE where to find it. (Long post last page last paragraph.) Since you are too lazy to go find it, to have read it in the first place, here it is:
> 
> "Although, with that, I have stumbled upon where I would feel comfortable  drawing a line on whether to abort a disabled child or not: Whether or  not the child will ever have the agency to make an informed decision on  whether it wishes to live or die. A Tay-Sachs child would not, for the  mental deficiency and shortened lifespan; it's pointless to give it a  choice it could never foreseeably exercise. An EDS child could, given  time."
> 
> Clear enough bud? I'm not giving the your post a response, you have not actually being reading mine. (Note that by "reading" I do not expect agreement or a response to every little bit. I do expect you to be reading closely enough to actually remember it when it is clearly spelled out.) I very, very rarely say this about any person as I feel it is a cruel thing to say, but you are not worth my time.


I don't see how this answers my question, and I don't see how you could think that it would. The difference between Tay-Sachs and EDS is huge, and I have acknowledged in previous posts that you put the cutoff somewhere  in between. *Where* in between? What do you consider a sufficient amount of agency? 

Let me throw some hypotheticals out there:

-mentally handicapped and slim chances of surviving to adulthood (Trisomy 18 )
-severely mentally handicapped their entire adult life (Fragile X)
-mildly mentally handicapped (Downs Syndrome)
-mentally fully-functioning but will not live beyond childhood (Progeria)
-fully functional and capable of living a normal life, but only if they adhere to a very strict diet and medications. If they stray from that, even briefly, it could lead to severe dementia, epilepsy, and organ failures at any point in their lives. (PKU, GA1, a handful of others)

This is a tough question to answer without looking like a heartless jackass, but you shouldn't need to worry about your answer. I'm still the bad guy here. I'm the one saying pretty much anything as bad as CMT or worse is worth chucking. You don't need to worry too much about anyone agreeing with my post, because I'm pretty sure the day someone on FaF agrees with me, hell will freeze over. For the record, I happen to know two people that actually *have* Charcot-Marie-Tooth, and they agree with me. One of them adopted kids, because he didn't want to pass it on. 



			
				Ad Hoc said:
			
		

> EDIT: I do not feel backed into a corner and this is not a retreat. I would be content with picking this conversation up again with someone else. (Lobar? I like Lobar, although if you're busy that's fine too.) I would even respond to Spatel's post if the new person just said, "I agree with Spatel's last post," as I have read it and do not feel particularly intellectually threatened by it.


Changing someone's opinion when they feel their *personal existence*, their *individuality* is threatened by the opposing viewpoint is like climbing Mount Everest. I never expected or intended to get to the summit of Everest. I would be content to get to base camp. It is a difficult task, on both of our ends, to convince the other, and I can sense the frustration on your end. I don't think this has anything to do with your existence, your individuality, so of course I would have the opinions that I do. My view is simply to prevent and minimize pain that I see as unnecessary. Obviously you've tried to show me otherwise--that there is some kind of difference between terminating an embryo and selecting a sperm. Perhaps there is. Morally, one of these things could be more serious than another. At the same time, terminating an embryo is clearly very morally different from killing an actual child, or a grown adult. I think that the negative moral consequences of preventing a potential human being from existing, once they have been set in motion, are small enough to be outweighed by disorders that cause a serious decrease in the quality of life, because this still happens naturally all the time. I think pregnancy and motherhood are serious enough emotional and physical commitments to give any mother the authority decide for themselves where that cutoff point should be, and any attempt to restrict that leads to a slippery slope that eliminates abortion as an institution.

I'm sad to hear you find my posts offensive enough to end the discussion, and I apologize if I did let any frustration get to the surface in the previous posts. I would bet good money you will have one more thing to say after this, so I'll let you go to town. I respectfully bow out with this post and leave the closing counter-argument to you. I promise I'll read it though. It has been very interesting to get your perspective on this.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 4, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> (Lobar? I like Lobar, although if you're busy that's fine too.)



:3c

I've wanted to jump back in, and also jump on others more, but alas, I've got end of the semester stuff to contend with.  This is also starting to become worthy of a dedicated thread, if you want to start one a while from now.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 4, 2011)

Lobar said:


> :3c
> 
> I've wanted to jump back in, and also jump on others more, but alas, I've got end of the semester stuff to contend with.  This is also starting to become worthy of a dedicated thread, if you want to start one a while from now.


A while from now would be good, I'm struggling with getting the last of my steno practice hours in and this discussion already has been a problem. The problem is it might end up being a _good_ while from now. I have another ~2 weeks of school, and then I'm going to Tennessee for another ~2 weeks. So, this might not get started for another ~4 weeks. I can wait that long if you can . . . I am a little concerned about getting ganged up on if a new thread was created, though, since it would attract a lot more attention. I've _never_ seen another FAFer actively defend this position, and at least a half dozen on this thread alone expressed opposition earlier. Hell I've never seen anyone in general defend this position (that mother should be able to choose, but this is a very . . . problematic thing to base the decision on), other than a few other disabled people. So I'm a little concerned about getting dog-piled. But I can deal with that, if it is necessary. It is an important subject to me in any event. 


@Spatel
I apologize for losing my temper, I was actually shaking as I wrote that and I should have walked away and cooled off before posting. But, as much as I regret the tone of my last post, I do not regret the meaning. I felt very disrespected. I am still irritated. It will be gone by morning, though. I still hold you in some esteem and I feel you are probably good at heart. I will probably engage you again later down the line if you let me. I suggest you watch your wording in the future; for your sake not mine. Because you were not directly acknowledging the paragraph at all, it appeared that you were willfully ignoring it instead of simply confused by it. This kind of miscommunication will cause trouble for you--not just with me. 

I have things to say about your last two posts. I am quite tired, though. As the conversation has already stalled, I will be taking my time. I may send it privately to avoid prematurely reigniting the conversation.


----------



## Creamsicle (Dec 4, 2011)

I think ramen is pretty good.

Aliens will only come to kill us all, or to use us as slave labor

Most mythological creatures exist(ed)

Angels are real, God is not [and bashfest in 3, 2, 1]


----------



## Bliss (Dec 5, 2011)

Edit: I believe this video is of good taste.



Commie Bat said:


> I don't see why this is such a big deal; since it would it not, be beneficial to Finland as well?



Our GDP growth isn't exactly 5%. 
We hold a 45,4% of GDP public debt, you have one of 9,5%. 
It - simply put - should be Russia's responsibility. You are not a third world county, so obviously the money goes where it is 'better spent'. Environment is not high on their list. I wonder if it is on their list at all. 

And you are right: it is not a big deal. But considering the cuts our goverment has to make to balance the budget it does seems highly unfair, running from obligations which should be shared by all of us.

And for goodness' sake if you cannot even put toilet paper into the bowl! :grin:


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 5, 2011)

Creamsicle said:


> I think ramen is pretty good.


*
SIR I AM APPALLED. *

Ramen is nothing short of amazing. :v


----------



## Spatel (Dec 5, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Hell I've never seen anyone in general defend this position (that mother should be able to choose, but this is a very . . . problematic thing to base the decision on), other than a few other disabled people. So I'm a little concerned about getting dog-piled. But I can deal with that, if it is necessary. It is an important subject to me in any event.


I've seen other people with your opinion. The something awful thread had a few. Every single one of them was unusually polite; one of them even called me 'mean spirited'. This is on a forum where the level of insults are typically something like 'retarded nigger fuck' or 'faggot sperglord', so it really left an impression.



> @Spatel
> I apologize for losing my temper, I was actually shaking as I wrote that and I should have walked away and cooled off before posting. But, as much as I regret the tone of my last post, I do not regret the meaning. I felt very disrespected. I am still irritated. It will be gone by morning, though. I still hold you in some esteem and I feel you are probably good at heart. I will probably engage you again later down the line if you let me. I suggest you watch your wording in the future; for your sake not mine. Because you were not directly acknowledging the paragraph at all, it appeared that you were willfully ignoring it instead of simply confused by it. This kind of miscommunication will cause trouble for you--not just with me.
> 
> I have things to say about your last two posts. I am quite tired, though. As the conversation has already stalled, I will be taking my time. I may send it privately to avoid prematurely reigniting the conversation.



I saw things in a few posts that could've been interpreted as an answer to my question, but I was really scared you had posted something more specific that I didn't notice, so I figured... rather than quoting the wrong thing and looking like a dumbass, I'd let you post it for me. Sorry about that.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 5, 2011)

I believe humans are better than other animals on Earth, because our ability to use writing to learn from the best minds in history gives us a potential no other creature on Earth can match.  That belief wouldn't raise an eyebrow elsewhere, but apparently it's flame-war material here.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 5, 2011)

Telnac said:


> I believe humans are better than other animals on Earth, because our ability to use writing to learn from the best minds in history gives us a potential no other creature on Earth can match.  That belief wouldn't raise an eyebrow elsewhere, but apparently it's flame-war material here.



How do you define intelligence to be the metric for superiority without it being inherently anthropocentric, and thus advancing a circular argument? (humans are superior because they're the best at what they're best at?)


----------



## Telnac (Dec 5, 2011)

Lobar said:


> How do you define intelligence to be the metric for superiority without it being inherently anthropocentric, and thus advancing a circular argument? (humans are superior because they're the best at what they're best at?)


What I'm talking about has nothing to do with intelligence, but potential.  What gives us that potential is writing: the ability to pass knowledge to others across vast differences between time & space.  That's the one thing that allowed humanity to go from tribal society where only basic skills can be taught from generation to generation to one where we can learn from the greatest minds throughout history and do thinks like land on the Moon.  Rocketry, computers, the Internet, physics, advanced mathematics... none of that would be possible if it wasn't for writing.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 5, 2011)

Human beings are pretty extraordinary animals, though I think assigning "best" anything of that sort can't really be more than an opinion. 

The planet does, after all, still belong to beetles. :v


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 5, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Let me throw some hypotheticals out there:
> 
> -mentally handicapped and slim chances of surviving to adulthood (Trisomy 18 )
> -severely mentally handicapped their entire adult life (Fragile X)
> ...



All of the above list.
Hell is not so fiery as you believe


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 5, 2011)

I believe we all need to have some Ice-Cream and chill out. :v


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

I believe that it should be alright to tell the truth without someone getting appalled by your not sugarcoating statements.

I also believe that I typed that oddly and would love if someone corrected it.


----------



## Enwon (Dec 5, 2011)

I believe that existence is inherently meaningless and pointless.  But I also believe that there is no afterlife, because the entirety of the human "soul" is, in fact, their brains.  There may or may not be a god, but if there is, said god likely does not care too much about human affairs.  We search for meaning, but there is no ultimate answer.  Religion developed as part of the search for meaning (it is a recorded fact that devoutly religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people, provided that they genuinely believe in their religion)  Romantic love also serves that purpose for some period of time (brain scans have revealed similarities between a person being infatuated with another person, and a person having a religious experience)  In the end, life is about finding a reason to exist.

I don't believe the world would have significantly less conflict without religion.  First of all, one would have to consider the idea of a world devoid of religion- people would still have to answer questions as to the meaning of existence.  And people, being different, will ultimately come up with different answers.  Some people will still believe strongly in their answers.  They would still find reasons to fight, to create conflict.  The key to reducing conflict is to promote tolerance of other beliefs, not to destroy other beliefs.

I also believe that it is important to argue points and keep an open mind to other arguments in order to formulate a logical opinion.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Fella. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels do shift over time; sometimes production outweighs use by flora. When they are higher, they correlate with a higher global temperature, which has unpredictable effects on global weather systems. This is a geological fact. What's in question is whether or not it's really on the rise right now, and if human activity is causing that rise.
> 
> 
> Mmmm. My apologies.



Actually, more atmospheric carbon dioxide is probably a good thing.  Plants need it to survive, after all.  They grow stronger, and become more drought resistant.  Man made climate change is bullshit.  Climate change is beyond our control, for better or worse.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 5, 2011)

I believe that disbelief in an 'afterlife' makes it easier to focus on doing good here and now.
I also believe that the actions that are motivated by certain beliefs are a reflection of the character of the beliefs thamselves.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

I believe in a God that governs all man.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> Actually, more atmospheric carbon dioxide is probably a good thing.  Plants need it to survive, after all.  They grow stronger, and become more drought resistant.  Man made climate change is bullshit.  Climate change is beyond our control, for better or worse.



Dude did you not read about the greenhouse effect?

When there is more carbon dioxide in the air more heat is trapped.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> Actually, more atmospheric carbon dioxide is probably a good thing.  Plants need it to survive, after all.  They grow stronger, and become more drought resistant.  Man made climate change is bullshit.  Climate change is beyond our control, for better or worse.


Did ya read any of the other posts after mine?

That aside, while plants do need CO2, they can be negatively affected by it the same way humans can be negatively affected by too much oxygen. That's not even considering how climate changes might affect them, and increased atmospheric CO2 levels have historically correlated with higher global temperatures and a resulting climate shift.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 5, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> Dude did you not read about the greenhouse effect?
> 
> When there is more carbon dioxide in the air more heat is trapped.


Hurr, the Byebul sez the erth and all the Brute creatures exist only to serve us! Stoopid scientists!


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Hurr, the Byebul sez the erth and all the Brute creatures exist only to serve us! Stoopid scientists!



I never said anything like that, retard.
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?MenuItemID=103
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224319/more-carbon-dioxide-please/roy-spencer


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

Now Kit, be gentle for the believers! 

And Mike, Shut up if you are going to speak that way.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

I mock ignorant, bigoted atheists just as much as I mock ignorant, bigoted theists.  Simply believing that you are better than someone because of a belief or lack thereof is unbridled arrogance.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> I mock ignorant, bigoted atheists just as much as I mock ignorant, bigoted theists.



And what was Kit doing? Mocking ignorant, bigoted theist beliefs.

Don't be a hypocrite, it is not becoming of anyone.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> And what was Kit doing? Mocking ignorant, bigoted theist beliefs.
> 
> Don't be a hypocrite, it is not becoming of anyone.



It sounded like he was attributing those beliefs to me.  Just because I happen to believe in God doesn't mean that I have to believe in creationism or any shit like that.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> I never said anything like that, retard.
> http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?MenuItemID=103
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224319/more-carbon-dioxide-please/roy-spencer



You've already posted these links.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You've already posted these links.



I didn't use the bible for those, FYI.  I look up ACTUAL scientists on this stuff.  Tell me, did any of my sources MENTION God or religious beliefs?


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> I didn't use the bible for those, FYI.  I look up ACTUAL scientists on this stuff.  Tell me, did any of my sources MENTION God or religious beliefs?



I can see where Kit may find parallels in the beliefs. 

Advice: Try and sound less terribly upset with your typing. It makes you less of a target.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> I can see where Kit may find parallels in the beliefs.



OK, whatever.  Kit needs to lay off the acid.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> OK, whatever.  Kit needs to lay off the acid.



AND ATTACKING OTHERS AGAIN!

Gods, do you know how to interact with others that don't share your beliefs without arguing, Mike?


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> AND ATTACKING OTHERS AGAIN!
> 
> Gods, do you know how to interact with others that don't share your beliefs without arguing, Mike?



Sorry, couldn't resist.

I didn't have a problem with Kit disagreeing with me, I had a problem with him being a smart alack about it.  With his quote about how I'm thumping the bible and shit.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> Sorry, couldn't resist.
> 
> I didn't have a problem with Kit disagreeing with me, I had a problem with him being a smart alack about it.  With his quote about how I'm thumping the bible and shit.



Usually when someone does something like that to me, I either come up with a _witty_ comeback or ignore them. Showing that you are upset turns you right to bait, especially around here!


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> Sorry, couldn't resist.
> 
> I didn't have a problem with Kit disagreeing with me, I had a problem with him being a smart alack about it.  With his quote about how I'm thumping the bible and shit.



I have a problem with you swimming in a sea of ignorance. :v


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

I've actually known a few atheists that were actually reasonable and didn't talk down to me like "oh how cute! he believes in God!"


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> I've actually known a few atheists that were actually reasonable and didn't talk down to me like "oh how cute! he believes in God!"



I aint talking you down for believeing in a deity. I really couldnt give a shit. You just wont look at the evidence against you on enviormentalism.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> I aint talking you down for believeing in a deity. I really couldnt give a shit. You just wont look at the evidence against you on enviormentalism.



You are the perfect example of a closed minded person.

For one thing, the best thing we can describe this whole climate change bullshit is inconclusive.  You should look at the evidence that supports me as well.  I have personally looked at both.  Also, a lot of people who deny global warming are not religionists but....GASP!  Scientists!

Here is a quote I have heard from some crackpot:  "Hot trends prove global warming.  Cold trends prove global warming."  This is the philosophy of a madman.

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-a-myth
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> *You are the perfect example of a closed minded person.*
> 
> 
> http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/For one thing, *the best thing we can describe this whole climate change bullshit is inconclusive.* You should look at the evidence that supports me as well. I have personally looked at both. Also, a lot of people who deny global warming are not religionists but....GASP! Scientists!
> ...




1st bolded point: You are acting with a closed-minded mentality by vehemently trying to prove your points by slinging insults. Calling someone stupid is not a way of proving your correctness over another's.

2nd bolded point:You basically state nobody is right here, and then later go on to try and prove yourself yet again. 

3rd bolded point: Are hot and cold trends not related, due to them being relatively equal opposites? Think.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

I'm normally a cheerful guy, but when the subject is religion and politics, I sound like a depressed misanthrope.

"As Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace explained, "*global warming  can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.*" No set of  facts can disprove the environmentalists' secular religion. In 2004,  former vice president Al Gore gave a speech on global warming in New  York City on the coldest day of the year. Warm trends prove global  warming. Cold trends also prove global warming. This is the philosophy  of a madman." ~Ann Coulter

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-w...al-warming-extreme-cold-temperatures-and-snow


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> I'm normally a cheerful guy, but when the subject is religion and politics, I sound like a depressed misanthrope.



Practice


----------



## Spatel (Dec 5, 2011)

Alright, once I get out of work I've got some seriousposting to do here, clearly.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall, you have failed the test. You don't even appear to be aware that the global warming part of global warming refers to long-term global averages--regional trends and seasonal trends will not necessarily show warming and in many cases are predicted to show cooling. Do you realize at this point that every time you link a pants-on-head crazy extreme right-wing source that everyone laughs at you?


----------



## Neuron (Dec 5, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I believe that disbelief in an 'afterlife' makes it easier to focus on doing good here and now.
> I also believe that the actions that are motivated by certain beliefs are a reflection of the character of the beliefs thamselves.


"If those in this life are not sacred, then nothing that's a part of it is sacred either."

Anyway, for another appalling belief that always gets people in my shit:
Science and religion are not as freaking incompatible as everyone likes to believe. Scientists can be religious. Religious people can believe in science. The conflicts arise, as I was reading in one of Einstein's essays on the subject, when people take the epics and myths used to explain scientific phenomena too literally.
A quote from Einstein: "Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame."

I've started reading about Spinoza's God, I actually really like this concept.

My personal views on God can be compared to the Hindu concept of Brahman. Someday all things become one.
Also: Reincarnation. HOWEVER, people who go to those reincarnation fairs and pretend they used to be famous people PISS ME THE FUCK OFF. Reincarnation doesn't work that way. You're more than likely not going to know about your past lives and you'll have to learn to live with it.
I do know of only one of my past lives, and I do not know many details.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

Onnes said:


> thewall, you have failed the test. You don't even appear to be aware that the global warming part of global warming refers to long-term global averages--regional trends and seasonal trends will not necessarily show warming and in many cases are predicted to show cooling. Do you realize at this point that every time you link a pants-on-head crazy extreme right-wing source that everyone laughs at you?




I was trying hard to understand what angle Mike was coming from.... you, Onnes, have confirmed my worst fears.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 5, 2011)

Lacus said:


> A quote from Einstein: "Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame."
> 
> I've started reading about Spinoza's God, I actually really like this concept.


Glad someone else feels this way.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 5, 2011)

Dude thewall is lost.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> For one thing, the best thing we can describe this whole climate change bullshit is inconclusive.  You should look at the evidence that supports me as well.  I have personally looked at both.  Also, a lot of people who deny global warming are not religionists but....GASP!  Scientists!



There's a 97% consensus of scientists in climate-related fields that anthropogenic climate change is real.



thewall said:


> http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-a-myth
> http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php



Oh hey look we have another Roose Hurro!

http://www.timecube.com

And btw, Ann Coulter is pretty much the antithesis of a reliable source.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

Just because I quote a conservative doesn't mean I have to agree with every single crackpot thing they say.  I don't agree with Ann coulter most of the time, but I think she is funny and correct sometimes.  Climate change is real, but to say that it is man made is absurd.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 5, 2011)

Lobar said:


> There's a 97% consensus of scientists in climate-related fields that anthropogenic climate change is real.



That kind of falls into the "no shit" category, though.

I don't think anyone knows for sure if it will be global WARMING or some other change.

We can't predict the weather in a period of 10 days, for fuck's sake.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 5, 2011)

Ricky said:


> That kind of falls into the "no shit" category, though.
> 
> I don't think anyone knows for sure if it will be global WARMING or some other change.
> 
> We can't predict the weather in a period of 10 days, for fuck's sake.



Climate and weather are very different things.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 5, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Climate and weather are very different things.



No they aren't.  Climate is just the average weather over a period of time.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 5, 2011)

Ricky said:


> No they aren't.  Climate is just the average weather over a period of time.



You clearly don't understand the difference between the trajectory of a chaotic system and the other statistical quantities describing it, which is why I provided a link that briefly explains how climate predictions work.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 5, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You clearly don't understand the difference between the trajectory of a chaotic system and the other statistical quantities describing it, which is why I provided a link that briefly explains how climate predictions work.



The link doesn't explain anything.

People can't accurately predict weather patterns.  It even says that in so many words.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 5, 2011)

Ricky said:


> That kind of falls into the "no shit" category, though.



It should be, _but_...



thewall said:


> Climate change is real, but to say that it is man made is absurd.



...it clearly isn't for the one whose skull we are trying to drill these basic facts into.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 5, 2011)

Ricky said:


> The link doesn't explain anything.
> 
> People can't accurately predict weather patterns.  It even says that in so many words.



But we aren't trying to predict the weather, we're trying to predict the climate. For example, the trajectory of a balanced chaotic pendulum is of course chaotic and it's average deflection is zero, yet you would claim this average should also be chaotic. The article I linked shows how climate models are in fact accurate and predictive. Here is an even simpler and shorter article on the topic of climate and weather.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 5, 2011)

Onnes said:


> But we aren't trying to predict the weather, we're trying to predict the climate. For example, the trajectory of a balanced chaotic pendulum is of course chaotic and it's average deflection is zero, yet you would claim this average should also be chaotic. The article I linked shows how climate models are in fact accurate and predictive. Here is an even simpler and shorter article on the topic of climate and weather.



*facepalms*

I'm not wasting my time, so stop posting links to that stupid site.

Here's one that shows the opposite:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7499524/You-cant-predict-the-weather-or-climate-change.html

Look, I can use Google too!

The fact is there are contradictory models so that in itself shows you CAN'T PREDICT THE FUCKING WEATHER (even over a large period of time).

So, again.  I'm not wasting my time.

You can show events, or how they changed the weather in hindsight (or how they are affecting the climate) but you can't accurately predict a chaotic system like weather or the stock market or whatever.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 5, 2011)

Ricky said:


> You can show events, or how they changed the weather in hindsight (or how they are affecting the climate) but you can't accurately predict a chaotic system like weather or the stock market or whatever.



Ah, the Torygraph--if you actually read the article you'd find that even it implies that temperature is increasing and hence climate is predictable! Just because something is uncertain doesn't make it completely unknowable. Also, I just gave you an example of a perfect prediction of a chaotic system. The entire study of chaos relies on the fact that many quantities related to chaotic systems are well-behaved and conducive to study.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 5, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Ah, the Torygraph--if you actually read the article you'd find that even it implies that temperature is increasing and hence climate is predictable!



That's not how predictions work.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 5, 2011)

Ricky said:


> That's not how predictions work.



Every prediction of a real physical system carries with it an uncertainty. There is no such thing as a prediction minus uncertainty. Not to mention that the first article I linked clearly showed climate models making accurate predictions about temperature averages.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 5, 2011)

Anyway, on topic: I believe in The American Dream :roll:


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 5, 2011)

"I don't believe in destiny, or the guiding hand of fate.
I don't believe in forever, or love as a mystical state.
I don't believe in the stars or the planets, or angels watching from above
But I believe there's a ghost of a chance we can find someone to love
And make it last....'
XD

I believe quoting someone else doesn't make you look any smarter.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

Interesting fact:  did you know that respiration creates carbon dioxide?

Some of us are going to have to stop breathing.  How about the alarmists go first?

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/RobinsonAndRobinson.pdf

You will note that most of my sources on this subject are from SCIENTISTS.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 5, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> "I don't believe in destiny, or the guiding hand of fate.
> I don't believe in forever, or love as a mystical state.
> I don't believe in the stars or the planets, or angels watching from above
> But I believe there's a ghost of a chance we can find someone to love
> ...


I'm not trying to look any smarter asshole, I'm just trying to make a point because they put it in better words than I could think of at the time.

Not everyone who uses quotes to get their point across is trying to be pretentious. THERE'S AN APPALLING BELIEF FOR YOU.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> Interesting fact:  did you know that respiration creates carbon dioxide?
> 
> Some of us are going to have to stop breathing.  How about the alarmists go first?
> 
> ...



Let's see, here you have an opinion article, not an academic paper, that is copyright Dow Jones & Co. for some reason.  The authors work at the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine", an organization I've never heard of before, and primarily study medicine and things not related to climate.  One is a doctor of veterinary medicine and completely unqualified to speak on climatology, the qualifications of the other aren't mentioned in his bio, but it does mention he is the editor of an anti-climate change newsletter and also produces homeschooling materials.  The front page of its website mentions both how they are fully privately funded and also their participation in an anti-climate change project which they also link to in the sidebar, despite it being an issue entirely unrelated to their field.

In short, their credentials nothing but are a thin veneer of authority painted over a massive wad of bullshit.  This institute consists of a small group of men from unrelated fields and exists only to lend their names and credibility to anti-climate change propaganda pieces bought and paid for by Wall Street (hence copyright Dow Jones & Co.).  They are paid professional liars.  You see the exact same type of behavior from creationists.  It is a sham.

Again, amongst actual climate SCIENTISTS, there is a 97% consensus that climate change is real and man-made.  Though if you were arguing in good faith in the first place, you'd never have even tried to float such a bullshit line of demagoguery like environmental regulations on breathing.  That's just fucking ridiculous on every level.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> Interesting fact:  did you know that respiration creates carbon dioxide?
> 
> Some of us are going to have to stop breathing.  How about the alarmists go first?
> 
> ...



Yeah, and plants use carbon dioxide to do that whole shit that they do and produce oxygen.
And once again, the day is saved thanks to our local vegetation.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 5, 2011)

thewall said:


> Interesting fact:  did you know that respiration creates carbon dioxide?
> 
> Some of us are going to have to stop breathing.  How about the alarmists go first?
> 
> ...



Nice...

The other thing most people fail to mention is more CO2 = more clouds = more terrestrial cooling from the sun.



> In short, their credentials nothing but are a thin veneer of authority  painted over a massive wad of bullshit.  This institute consists of a  small group of men from unrelated fields and exists only to lend their  names and credibility to anti-climate change propaganda pieces bought  and paid for by Wall Street (hence copyright Dow Jones & Co.).  They  are paid professional liars.  You see the exact same type of behavior  from creationists.  It is a sham.



Skepticalscience.com is no more credible, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## thewall (Dec 5, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Yeah, and plants use carbon dioxide to do that whole shit that they do and produce oxygen.
> And once again, the day is saved thanks to our local vegetation.





Ricky said:


> Nice...
> 
> The other thing most people fail to mention is more CO2 = more clouds = more terrestrial cooling from the sun.
> 
> ...



Thanks guys!  C:


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

I BELIEVE IN DISREGARDING ANY MORE STATEMENTS TOWARD GLOBAL WARMING!!

Geez. Seems like nobody wants to budge... wait! That's why there is no consensus on the issue! 


Come on, gimme more outrageousness.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 5, 2011)

Ricky said:


> Nice...
> 
> The other thing most people fail to mention is more CO2 = more clouds = more terrestrial cooling from the sun.
> 
> ...



Skepticalscience cites actual academic fucking journals.  It's a difference of night and day.

Are you trying to be the new Brazen or something?  You never used to be this goddamned thick.



Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Geez. Seems like nobody wants to budge... wait! That's why there is no consensus on the issue!



yes there is that is the point of the argument


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 5, 2011)

Lobar.... ._.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 5, 2011)

Lobar said:


> yes there is that is the point of the argument



IT MUST BE TRUE THIS SITE SAID SO, OKAY?!?!

Jebus...  Do a Google search and you'll find there is a plethora of well-cited crap either way.

The only thing scientists will ever agree on is we don't really know.

Also, keep in mind I'm talking about global WARMING (and not global climate change).


----------



## Bliss (Dec 5, 2011)

Ricky said:


> IT MUST BE TRUE THIS SITE SAID SO, OKAY?!?!
> 
> Jebus...  Do a Google search and you'll find there is a plethora of well-cited crap either way.
> 
> ...


...

Oh, right. America.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 5, 2011)

Yeah, because of my secret hidden agenda...  :roll:

That said, this discussion always blows up because people believe what's all over the news/media and aren't capable of looking stuff up themselves.

The problem is they called it "Global WARMING" when they should have called it "Global Climate Change" and then I wouldn't even be having this discussion.

You can show people are affecting the climate.  You can't show the climate will take on a certain path over the next 100+ years.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 5, 2011)

Ricky said:


> The problem is they called it "Global WARMING" when they should have called it "Global Climate Change" and then I wouldn't even be having this discussion.
> 
> You can show people are affecting the climate.  You can't show the climate will take on a certain path over the next 100+ years.


Well, the assumption is that the average global temperature will rise, as that's what we've seen in our geological history. Higher atmospheric CO2 correlates with a higher global temperature. But you're right in that we can't predict what the exact effect of that will be. Most scientists think it will result in the global ice caps melting (which is already being observed), which will pretty much definitely result in higher sea levels. (Big problem for coastal settlements!) But on top of that, it would affect the temperature and salinity of the oceans. Mess with the ocean, you mess with global weather systems. You're right in that we can't precisely predict what will happen, but there's a good chance it won't be good news for us. Similar temperature hikes in the earth's past have resulted in such pleasantries as ice ages.

Technically both terms are correct, though. Higher CO2 levels are correlated with higher average global temperatures. But you're right, those higher global temperatures may not make every day balmier. (It's only a difference of a few degrees anyway.)


----------



## Bliss (Dec 5, 2011)

Ricky said:


> Yeah, because of my secret hidden agenda...


Agenda? My opinion is not that high. More like latent teenage rebellion or anncoultering: "no hippies is keeping me from phucking up the Earth!". It may be connected to the "what wrong with flat tax, lol?".

Ad hominem enough for you? 



> The problem is they called it "Global WARMING" when they should have called it "Global Climate Change" and then I wouldn't even be having this discussion.


Why should it not be called by a perfectly valid term? There is a plenty of sources for you to go through if that was a problem.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 5, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Technically both terms are correct, though. Higher CO2 levels are correlated with higher average global temperatures. But you're right, those higher global temperatures may not make every day balmier. (It's only a difference of a few degrees anyway.)



Not in the last 50 years (according to the PDF above).

Still.  I'm not going to completely dismiss it like they do in that paper.

For some reason, whenever this is brought up, stating you disagree with the term "Global Warming" always leads to idiotic retorts like "You must not care about the climate."

I never understood that.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 5, 2011)

I believe thewall is beyond my skill to redeem.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 5, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I'm not trying to look any smarter asshole, I'm just trying to make a point because they put it in better words than I could think of at the time.
> 
> Not everyone who uses quotes to get their point across is trying to be pretentious. THERE'S AN APPALLING BELIEF FOR YOU.


The fuck? What's got *your *thong in a knot? I wasn't talking to OR about you, and the first part of my post *is a quote from someone else.*


----------



## Neuron (Dec 5, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The fuck? What's got *your *thong in a knot? I wasn't talking to OR about you, and the first part of my post *is a quote from someone else.*


Derp. Nevermind me. I thought you were addressing me back and you ninja edit'd it. Silly me.

Find it funny you say thong and I can't be wearing one right now. Guess that answers your question, dude. :V

Pardon my obscene bitch fit. I'm gonna go take a bath.

Also:
I don't think you have to be black to be an N-word, so to speak. The meaning has changed in a really weird way.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 6, 2011)

Well, to inject my opinion on the matter of man-made global warming: I believe man-made climate change is real.  That said, I believe the net effect so far is pretty minor.  I also believe the costs of radically changing how we generate energy and how we power industry and transportation dwarf the costs we'd incur with a minor change in sea levels and weather patterns over the next 100 years.  After all, the sea level has risen before and society's coped just fine.  Better (and cheaper) to build sea walls (and reinforce the ones that already exist) in critical areas than to try to switch our economy from a fossil fuel one to a hydrogen-based one ASAP.

Besides, society will make the switch eventually.  As we use up the easy to get fossil fuels, they become more expensive.  While that makes things like oil sands cost effective, it also makes alternative energy more attractive to investors.  We don't need heavy-handed government intervention in the name of saving us from ourselves.  Economic realities will force society to switch to alternative energy supplies over the next 100 years or so and the Earth will adjust to deal with the slightly higher carbon content in the atmosphere in the meantime.

Basically, I just don't see why there's any cause for alarm.  The Earth's been far warmer than this in the past, and we didn't have a runaway greenhouse effect that turned Earth into Venus back then... and it won't happen 20 years from now, either.  Even some of the more dire predictions utterly pale in comparison to the rapid climate change the Earth experienced just 12,000 years ago.


----------



## ElectricJackal (Dec 6, 2011)

i beleve that the official report on 9/11 is a load of shit. somthing else went on.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 7, 2011)

I believe I am half-crazy. :v


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 7, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe I am half-crazy. :v



Only half? 

I am appalled. :v


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 7, 2011)

I believe that crazy is a relative term and sanity can ultimately kill you.


----------



## thewall (Dec 7, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Well, to inject my opinion on the matter of man-made global warming: I believe man-made climate change is real.  That said, I believe the net effect so far is pretty minor.  I also believe the costs of radically changing how we generate energy and how we power industry and transportation dwarf the costs we'd incur with a minor change in sea levels and weather patterns over the next 100 years.  After all, the sea level has risen before and society's coped just fine.  Better (and cheaper) to build sea walls (and reinforce the ones that already exist) in critical areas than to try to switch our economy from a fossil fuel one to a hydrogen-based one ASAP.
> 
> Besides, society will make the switch eventually.  As we use up the easy to get fossil fuels, they become more expensive.  While that makes things like oil sands cost effective, it also makes alternative energy more attractive to investors.  We don't need heavy-handed government intervention in the name of saving us from ourselves.  Economic realities will force society to switch to alternative energy supplies over the next 100 years or so and the Earth will adjust to deal with the slightly higher carbon content in the atmosphere in the meantime.
> 
> Basically, I just don't see why there's any cause for alarm.  The Earth's been far warmer than this in the past, and we didn't have a runaway greenhouse effect that turned Earth into Venus back then... and it won't happen 20 years from now, either.  Even some of the more dire predictions utterly pale in comparison to the rapid climate change the Earth experienced just 12,000 years ago.



I don't agree with this, but this is well written and reasonable.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 7, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> sanity can ultimately kill you.


. . .

How?


----------



## thewall (Dec 7, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> . . .
> 
> How?



very carefully


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 7, 2011)

thewall said:


> very carefully


I demand to know HOW sanity can kill you.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 7, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> . . .
> 
> How?



One must have a degree of insanity to stay alive. If one were completely sane, they would realize a few things and denounce others.

1.Humans are just chemical reactions. There is really no reason to live.

2.If one interaction with someone failed, they would not interact with another again. Humans need interaction with others so as not to die or become unhealthy. (insanity is often said to be characterized as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results)

3.With complete sanity, people can not accept the delusions of hope, love, religion, importance, etc. A combination of several of these delusions are necessary for a human to fight entropy.

I got more, but I am busy folding clothes so I can't focus on telling you all unless you ask for more.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 7, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> 1.Humans are just chemical reactions. There is really no reason to live.
> . . .
> 3.With complete sanity, people can not accept the delusions of hope,  love, religion, importance, etc. A combination of several of these  delusions are necessary for a human to fight entropy.


I accept number one and having done so actually improved my life. As far as three goes, first off: not all of those are delusions. Love and hope are states of mind and, since the mind is a physical thing driven by very-real chemical and electrical reactions, are themselves quite real as well. You just can't see them because they're made up from such small chemical/energy interactions. 



Grae Sparrowkin said:


> 2.If one interaction with someone failed, they would not interact with another again. Humans need interaction with others so as not to die or become unhealthy. (insanity is often said to be characterized as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results)


The instinct to socialize is extremely powerful, it would take a lot of bad experiences and extremely few good ones to cause that kind of conditioning. That's like saying people would stop eating completely if they got food poisoning just once. No animal does that. 


I don't this is appalling, just sort of . . . silly, to say the least.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 7, 2011)

Sanity is not necessarily the same thing as emotional detachment and objectivity. Often quite the opposite.


----------



## Azure (Dec 7, 2011)

I believe I am the best chemical reaction.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 7, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I accept number one and having done so actually improved my life. As far as three goes, first off: not all of those are delusions.* Love and hope are states of mind* and, since the mind is a physical thing driven by very-real chemical and electrical reactions, are themselves quite real as well. You just can't see them because they're made up from such small chemical/energy interactions.
> 
> 
> The instinct to socialize is extremely powerful, it would take a lot of bad experiences and extremely few good ones to cause that kind of conditioning. That's like saying people would stop eating completely if they got food poisoning just once. No animal does that.
> ...



Love and hope are delusions. Attraction (or more importantly the drive to procreate) is the chemical reaction associated with Love as I am trying to connote it. Hope is a justification in the human mind for it to keep going, I associate it with the chemical reaction triggering the will to live.

Saying the delusions are real because the chemical reactions that produce them are real is a very relative-type thing to say. Like... "our own little worlds" 

I agree that the whole interaction thing was a bit of an extreme example. I will have to come up with a different one for you.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 7, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Love and hope are delusions. Attraction (or more importantly the drive to procreate) is the chemical reaction associated with Love as I am trying to connote it. Hope is a justification in the human mind for it to keep going, I associate it with the chemical reaction triggering the will to live.
> 
> Saying the delusions are real because the chemical reactions that produce them are real is a very relative-type thing to say. Like... "our own little worlds"


You're not understanding me. Every emotion you have is a physical thing, it's just physical on the chemical level. It may not be triggered by something that's real (for example, if you have a visual hallucination that a tiger is attacking you, the tiger may not be real, but your fear reaction is very real), but it's based off of neurotransmitters and other physiological reactions that are definitely real. In some cases we've actually measured them. Romantic love (like butterfly love, young love) comes from changes in dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine levels. "Lifelong" love (like you'd see with parent-child relationships or with those old couples that have been together for 30 years and are still happy) is associated with oxytocin. Literally your body starts pumping out feel-goody oxytocin/etc., when you have contact with the person you love, same way being charged by a tiger (real or not) makes you pump out not-so-feel-goody adrenaline/etc., It's as physical and real as anything else.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 7, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> You're not understanding me. Every emotion you have is a physical thing, it's just physical on the chemical level. It may not be triggered by something that's real (for example, if you have a visual hallucination that a tiger is attacking you, the tiger may not be real, but your fear reaction is very real), but it's based off of neurotransmitters and other physiological reactions that are definitely real. In some cases we've actually measured them. Romantic love (like butterfly love, young love) comes from changes in dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine levels. "Lifelong" love (like you'd see with parent-child relationships or with those old couples that have been together for 30 years and are still happy) is associated with oxytocin. Literally your body starts pumping out feel-goody oxytocin/etc., when you have contact with the person you love, same way being charged by a tiger (real or not) makes you pump out not-so-feel-goody adrenaline/etc., It's as physical and real as anything else.




Meh, I can agree with that, but I dually see them as delusions created by the human mind to help fight entropy.

Edit: Something I just came in contact with and thought I would voice:
I believe that you don't have to react violently (either mentally or physically) when someone confronts your beliefs.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 7, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Meh, I can agree with that, but I dually see them as delusions created by the human mind to help fight* entropy.
> *



I'm pretty sure you're not using that word right.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 7, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Meh, I can agree with that, but I dually see them as delusions created by the human mind to help fight entropy.


. . . Why? They're mostly likely an evolutionary trait. Humans are basically dependent on the social group for long-term survival, they benefit from having a pleasure response to bonding with others or a pain response (sadness) to being isolated. Same way they benefit from having a pleasure response to eating good food or a pain response to getting burned by fire. (Since, if there was no pain response, people would likely not act defensively. We see it in people with CIPA.)


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 7, 2011)

I very well could be using the word wrong, but at this point I think you understand what I am trying to convey.

Ahm... as to why? I don't rightly know. I will have to think about it more. I have to acknowledge that it might just be how I am feeling today.


----------



## thewall (Dec 7, 2011)

I believe people here are too cold and calculating on the subject of love and hope.


----------



## Azure (Dec 7, 2011)

thewall said:


> I believe people here are too cold and calculating on the subject of love and hope.


What would you say if I told you I believe hope is for fools and serves no purpose that is tangible or measurable?


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 7, 2011)

Azure said:


> What would you say if I told you I believe hope is for fools and serves no purpose that is tangible or measurable?




I would hug you... then remind you that the feeling "hope" serves the purpose of justifying facing adversity. :grin:

But only if I am allowed to answer, too!


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Dec 7, 2011)

I believe my ass looks FABULOUS in these jeans


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 7, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> I believe my ass looks FABULOUS in these jeans


Agreed.


----------



## thewall (Dec 7, 2011)

I believe this thread is being derailed.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 7, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> You're not understanding me. Every emotion you have is a physical thing, it's just physical on the chemical level. It may not be triggered by something that's real (for example, if you have a visual hallucination that a tiger is attacking you, the tiger may not be real, but your fear reaction is very real), but it's based off of neurotransmitters and other physiological reactions that are definitely real. In some cases we've actually measured them. Romantic love (like butterfly love, young love) comes from changes in dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine levels. "Lifelong" love (like you'd see with parent-child relationships or with those old couples that have been together for 30 years and are still happy) is associated with oxytocin. Literally your body starts pumping out feel-goody oxytocin/etc., when you have contact with the person you love, same way being charged by a tiger (real or not) makes you pump out not-so-feel-goody adrenaline/etc., It's as physical and real as anything else.



Tangent time. Pharmaceutical companies deserve all the hate in the world for convincing people that neurotransmitters are these big primary determinants of mood and feelings.  Look at it this way, if neurotransmitters were so important then selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, as well as similar compounds for norephinephrine and dopamine, would actually actually produce noticeable mental changes in patients as opposed to acting like expensive placebos. On that note, we can also thank pharma companies for suppressing negative trials and distorting the perceived effectiveness of these particular drugs for years. The fact of the matter is we still have no clue how most of the  dynamics of the brain relate to feelings, and we don't even know how  exactly neurotransmitters fit into those dynamics.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 7, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> I very well could be using the word wrong, but at this point I think you understand what I am trying to convey.
> 
> Ahm... as to why? I don't rightly know. I will have to think about it more. I have to acknowledge that it might just be how I am feeling today.


I think I do know what you are doing. You're trying to combat the stigma associated with neuroatypicality/mental disability. If I'm on target with that, then that's a noble thing to do and I would hope you continue attempting it. However, this business of claiming that everyone is "insane" because everyone carries little irrationalities is not a very good way to do it. To reframe it, it's kind of like saying everyone is physically disabled because pretty much everyone experiences some level of day-to-day pain. As someone who actually has a legitimate disability, it's kind of like . . . uh, no, I do not think so. Even if it were true, what purpose does such a claim serve? There's a purpose behind society drawing a line as to where typical life unpleasantries end and actual disabilities begin. The latter begins where it can be predicted to actually have some kind of notable impact on a person's, you know, _basic abilities_.* The problems caused by these impacts can't be addressed without first being identified.

Back to the stigma thing, though. There is a social stigma to being disabled; it's a lot stronger than I think any able-bodied or neurotypical person realizes. But that can't really be combated by saying, "Well we're all a _little_ disabled," no more than issues of race can be combated by claiming to be "color blind" (yeah right!) and leaving it at that. Mind you, you're not obligated to help, this doesn't have to be your battle any more than any other social issue has to be your battle, it's a choice to get involved. Everyone has to pick their battles. But if you do want to help, and you want to be good at it, you have to go at this shit head-on. First things first, check your privilege. Then, learn. Learning mostly revolves around reading. Almost all psych/medical textbooks are written by people who have no disabilities. They can only write about their _observations_ of disability (likely wrapped up in all of society's ableistic misconceptions to boot), not the first-hand experience of it. While these can provide valuable clinical insights, you'll only get part of the story if you rely on them, and an unfortunate amount of people in the medical/psychology field (and society in general) are guilty of just that. One must get word from the horse's mouth, so to speak; read things that are _by_ PWDs, not just _about_ PWDs. (People With Disabilities.) Here's a place to start. Then, act. How you act is up to you, there are a lot of different ways to do it. Any way is valid as long as some amount of good comes from them. As an aspiring psychologist, you may end in a unique position to do a lot of good just in how you set up your professional ethics. (Although it depends on where you go in your career exactly.) If you do end up working with PWDs, by god, fight this. Fight this. Avoid this as much as you can.** You will almost definitely struggle with these at some point, do not be so proud as to think you are immune to a societal norm that's been with us for millennia and may even have a root in instinct, but be aware and _fight_ it if you wish to change it. 


*Some PW"D"s would resent this statement. Dr. Temple Grandin, for example, is a high-functioning autist who does not consider her autism to be disabling, and attributes most of her ground-breaking observations to having an altered perception due to it. She has a lovely talk about it here. Some folks with physical "disabilities" are so "damaged" that they outperform traditionally able-bodied athletes. Certainly a lot physical and mental issues are inarguably disabling, but cases such as these should hopefully lead a person to question the prereqs for "functionality" that society sets up. 

**I can kind of see where it's necessary if the individual is a physical danger, but the militancy and methodology seem rather extreme.




Onnes said:


> Tangent time. Pharmaceutical companies deserve all  the hate in the world for convincing people that neurotransmitters are  these big primary determinants of mood and feelings.  Look at it this  way, if neurotransmitters were so important then selective serotonin  reuptake inhibitors, as well as similar compounds for norephinephrine  and dopamine, would actually actually produce noticeable mental changes  in patients as opposed to acting like expensive placebos. On that note,  we can also thank pharma companies for suppressing negative trials and  distorting the perceived effectiveness of these particular drugs for  years. The fact of the matter is we still have no clue how most of the   dynamics of the brain relate to feelings, and we don't even know how   exactly neurotransmitters fit into those dynamics.


Oh eh I'm not going to argue with this. I still feel that emotions are wholly physical reactions even if we don't completely understand them.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 7, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Oh eh I'm not going to argue with this. I still feel that emotions are wholly physical reactions even if we don't completely understand them.



I'm not arguing that the basis of mind is not physical, but that any current assertions that we know how that basis actually operates are complete bollocks.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 7, 2011)

Onnes said:


> I'm not arguing that the basis of mind is not physical, but that any current assertions that we know how that basis actually operates are complete bollocks.


It would seem to me that we have at least identified some correlations, even if we don't quite understand them? I am a layman admittedly.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 7, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> It would seem to me that we have at least identified some correlations, even if we don't quite understand them? I am a layman admittedly.



Without some sort of underlying theory, correlations really don't provide much if any insight. Consider that selective serotonin reuptake enhancers have been shown to be effective in the treatment of depression, despite having the exact opposite effect as the typical SSRI compounds. The fact of the matter is we don't know what actually constitutes normal serotonin levels or whether changes in those levels are causative, a byproduct, or simply random. What we do know is that modifying serotonin and other neurotransmitter levels doesn't necessarily do anything to the mind, and what effects are seen are often difficult to predict and depend highly on the individual. The understanding of the relevant processes in the brain simply doesn't exist, and this is why psychiatric care often boils down to trial and error and guesswork.


----------



## Don (Dec 7, 2011)

I believe modern Western democracy is a well-executed farce for a governmental system that's just as corrupt and weak as the dictatorships it claims to oppose.

I believe in God, and the right of others to believe what they wish (so long as it is not a dangerous cult-mafia like Scientology). 

I believe that both the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement are nothing but a bunch of attention whores with neither the idea nor will to actually make any changes to society.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 7, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Without some sort of underlying theory, correlations really don't provide much if any insight. Consider that selective serotonin reuptake enhancers have been shown to be effective in the treatment of depression, despite having the exact opposite effect as the typical SSRI compounds. The fact of the matter is we don't know what actually constitutes normal serotonin levels or whether changes in those levels are causative, a byproduct, or simply random. What we do know is that modifying serotonin and other neurotransmitter levels doesn't necessarily do anything to the mind, and what effects are seen are often difficult to predict and depend highly on the individual. The understanding of the relevant processes in the brain simply doesn't exist, and this is why psychiatric care often boils down to trial and error and guesswork.


This is why I should like to be your friend, Beard God; I might learn something from it.


----------



## thewall (Dec 7, 2011)

Don said:


> I believe that both the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement are nothing but a bunch of attention whores with neither the idea nor will to actually make any changes to society.



I'm a tea party activist.  Come at me bro.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 7, 2011)

thewall said:


> I'm a tea party activist.  Come at me bro.




Dude... Mike.... Why you try to come in to my civil thread and cause outright argument, bro? Open your MIIIIINNNNND! If you don't soon, you know that everyone here on FAF will rip it open. We would prefer to not have to, though.

Oh! And Ad Hoc, I do believe everyone has a little bit of insanity to balance things out. Yin and Yang sort of stuff. I mean, on the sanity test to go as a submariner for the US Navy if you are completely sane they won't let you go down.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 7, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Oh! And Ad Hoc, I do believe everyone has a little bit of insanity to balance things out. Yin and Yang sort of stuff. I mean, on the sanity test to go as a submariner for the US Navy if you are completely sane they won't let you go down.



Is insanity really the word you want here, though? Insanity is typically used to refer to those who are so far gone that they pose a danger to themselves and others, and I'm not sure "a little bit of insanity" can even be defined without using more precise terms. You might instead consider irrationality, instability, and the deadly sins as perceived negative characteristics that end up being shared to varying degrees by most people.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 7, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Oh! And Ad Hoc, I do believe everyone has a little bit of insanity to balance things out. Yin and Yang sort of stuff. I mean, on the sanity test to go as a submariner for the US Navy if you are completely sane they won't let you go down.


 I don't know why I spend as much time writing posts for this forum as I do. 

Excuse me while I go drink my liver into submission. :V


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 7, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I don't know why I spend as much time writing posts for this forum as I do.
> 
> Excuse me while I go drink my liver into submission. :V



Oh un-strike-out that sarcastic face. We all love that you're here.



Onnes said:


> Is insanity really the word you want here, though? Insanity is typically used to refer to those who are so far gone that they pose a danger to themselves and others, and I'm not sure "a little bit of insanity" can even be defined without using more precise terms. You might instead consider irrationality, instability, and the deadly sins as perceived negative characteristics that end up being shared to varying degrees by most people.



Nope. I think insanity is the right word considering how cliche my statement is. :3


----------



## Onnes (Dec 7, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Nope. I think insanity is the right word considering how cliche my statement is. :3



Come on, you want to become a psychologist. It's time to drop the cliches and take a more reasoned view of the mind. Such study is worthless if you cannot use it to refine your mental models and come up with something less meaningless and more profound.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 7, 2011)

thewall said:


> I'm a tea party activist.  Come at me bro.



That explains a lot. Really.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 7, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Come on, you want to become a psychologist. It's time to drop the cliches and take a more reasoned view of the mind. Such study is worthless if you cannot use it to refine your mental models and come up with something less meaningless and more profound.



Even psychologists have times when their brains don't cooperate. That time was this afternoon/evening for me. I don't often use cliches unless it is one of those times where my brain won't function past that intelligence level or I am talking to someone of that level of intelligence. ('course in this case it is the former)

What I am trying not to blather on about is: I think I may need some sleep before I continue this conversation.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Dec 7, 2011)

Don said:


> I believe modern Western democracy is a well-executed farce for a governmental system that's just as corrupt and weak as the dictatorships it claims to oppose.
> 
> I believe in God, and the right of others to believe what they wish (so long as it is not a dangerous cult-mafia like Scientology).
> 
> I believe that both the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement are nothing but a bunch of attention whores with neither the idea nor will to actually make any changes to society.


1. How is this so? You can argue the small things but the government is pretty much in the power of the people, as we can vote guys in or out. Also, if it's "just as weak" as dictatorships, how the hell are dictatorships weak?
2. This isn't really appalling to others.
3. Both are attention whores, but the Tea Party is trying to PREVENT changes to society.


----------



## HeroHoxha (Dec 7, 2011)

thewall said:


> I'm a tea party activist. Come at me bro.




Something I believe in that appals people? Communism, for starters.


----------



## HeroHoxha (Dec 8, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Appalling; not really. Though since you said your a communist I can safely/easily assume your a Marxist-Leninist, right?



Yep. I'm a non-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, meaning I generally follow the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha line, hence my username. And yeah, maybe appaling might be too strong of a word, but for the most part, it makes people afraid, especially when you have to explain that Stalin didn't kill 20 million people and that he wasn't a dictator (he didn't even have a fucking bank account, and he smoked the cheapest cigarettes avialable at kiosks, not to mention the Chairman of the Council of Ministers was a higher position than General Secretary).


----------



## thewall (Dec 8, 2011)

Just because I'm a tea party activist doesn't mean I defend everything they do.  I think the racism expressed in some of the rallies is unacceptable.  I really do.  I've called a few people out at rallies for racism.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 8, 2011)

thewall said:


> Just because I'm a tea party activist doesn't mean I defend everything they do.  I think the racism expressed in some of the rallies is unacceptable.  I really do.  I've called a few people out at rallies for racism.



Well I dont like the Tea party is because they want to stop change in society. Without change we cant progress as a society and as a species.


----------



## thewall (Dec 8, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> Well I dont like the Tea party is because they want to stop change in society. Without change we cant progress as a society and as a species.



You know what?  The words left/right wing are completely meaningless these days!  I support change when it is necessary, and I support keeping the status quo when it is necessary.  The word "liberal" is filled with irony nowadays.
 I strongly urge everyone here to read this.  It's awesome.
http://mises.org/books/mainspring.pdf


----------



## Aetius (Dec 8, 2011)

I have a massive boner for right wing dictatorships.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 8, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I have a massive boner for right wing dictatorships.



They always have the best uniforms <3


----------



## Aetius (Dec 8, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Then why do you like North Korea so much?
> 
> Are you cheating?  :V



Don't tell the dear leader ;_;

He will be very ronery.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> They always have the best uniforms <3


I AGREE <3 <3 <3


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 8, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> They always have the best uniforms <3



Relevant: (not really) http://hipsterhitler.com/comics/new-uniforms/


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 8, 2011)

I believe that we as Americans should stay the fuck out of other countrys buisness.


----------



## thewall (Dec 8, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Well the 20 million thing generally includes the Great Patriotic War, and even that number is off.  As it include all Eastern Countries that joined the Soviet Union, the actual combat losses were around 7 million for Russia.  Though Stalin did kill between 365,000 to up to 4 million.  Though the main reason the 20 million is added on was to demonize the East, since during that time the whole "red scare" was going on in the West.  It's just a fluke in history.
> 
> Going off of another assumption; the only reason people would be afraid of you, for your ideology generally means you come/live in the West.
> 
> ...



I am going to steal and paraphrase something DinosaurDammit said:

Are you a coprophilic?  Because shit is pouring from your mouth.


----------



## FoxPhantom (Dec 8, 2011)

I do believe that some arguments are never worth it weight in it's own pile of muck.


----------



## thewall (Dec 8, 2011)

I'm sorry, but the idea "there is no left, only middle and far right" is fucking stupid.  It didn't deserve an intelligent response, it deserved a slap in the face.  Especially when it is those on the left saying it. The only thing that phrase says is: "BAWWW!! MEANIE CONSERVATIVE!!"

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/msnbc-confirms-liberal-media-bias/

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp


----------



## Lobar (Dec 8, 2011)

thewall said:


> I'm sorry, but the idea "there is no left, only middle and far right" is fucking stupid.  It didn't deserve an intelligent response, it deserved a slap in the face.  Especially when it is those on the left saying it. The only thing that phrase says is: "BAWWW!! MEANIE CONSERVATIVE!!"
> 
> http://www.aim.org/aim-column/msnbc-confirms-liberal-media-bias/
> 
> http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp



I agree with Commie Bat.  Reagan threw this country as hard as he could to the right, and we've never shifted back to being left of Reagan since, save on small social issues like gay rights.  From the perspective of the developed world as a whole, America is a hyperconservative nation and its elected officials who can be more accurately described as liberal than moderate are sparse and continuing to dwindle.  Deal with it nerd.

Also LOL @ citing two hard-right blogs about mainstream liberal "bias".


----------



## thewall (Dec 8, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I agree with Commie Bat.  Reagan threw this country as hard as he could to the right, and we've never shifted back to being left of Reagan since, save on small social issues like gay rights.  From the perspective of the developed world as a whole, America is a hyperconservative nation and its elected officials who can be more accurately described as liberal than moderate are sparse and continuing to dwindle.  Deal with it nerd.
> 
> Also LOL @ citing two hard-right blogs about mainstream liberal "bias".



Well, Reagan is my hero.  If you consider him hard right, then I am hard right from your perspective.  I'm actually liberal on subjects like gay rights and immigration.

And besides, everything has a bias.  Deal with it nerd.  The only thing I was calling out was denying the existence of a political left, which is nothing short of utter stupidity.


----------



## HeroHoxha (Dec 8, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Though Stalin did kill between 365,000 to up to 4 million



That's a pretty wide ranging estimate. There is a book out there by J. Arch Getty that uses archival evidence to determine the actual number of those executed during the great purge. Of course, there were innocents that were unjustly killed because the guy carrying out the purge (Yezhov) was a total dick. The guy arrested an eleven year old for supposed "counter-revolutionary" activity, which apparently means the kid shit his pants. After Yezhov was shot (and for good reason), the case was reopened by Beria and the charges were cleared, along with many others being freed from the Gulag.


Anyways, you can view a few charts from the above mentioned book here: http://kasamaproject.org/2010/11/05/exploring-the-soviet-prison-system-in-the-1930s/#more-24710

The number of prison deaths/executions conducted through 1937-1938, even when combined, does not exceed one million.

and for good measure, here's a letter on the removal of Yezhov, sent to the Central Committee: http://red-channel.de/books/ezhov.htm


----------



## thewall (Dec 8, 2011)

I also believe communism is evil.  Communists like Stalin and Mao killed more people than Hitler ever did.  Not that Hitler wasn't evil, of course.  I feel sorry for the punk obsessed communists.  They are no better than those neo nazi punks.  What I find evil about communism is the focus on the group instead of the individual.  "To destroy you is no loss".

I'm a libertarian, and damn proud of it.  You may think I'm trolling, but I don't care.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 8, 2011)

thewall said:


> Well, Reagan is my hero.  If you consider him hard right, then I am hard right from your perspective.



I think you're hard right from just about everyone's perspective.



thewall said:


> And besides, everything has a bias.  Deal with it nerd.  The only thing I was calling out was denying the existence of a political left, which is nothing short of utter stupidity.



Right-wing sources such as these don't even make an attempt to rein in their biases, and in fact deliberately exaggerate their facts to be even further right to try to shift public perception of the "center" over to their side.  It's worked for thirty years, and the "center" is now just shy of insane Social Darwinist xenophobic fascism.

Find me anything Obama's done that's to the left of Nixon's campaign platform, I dare you.


----------



## HeroHoxha (Dec 8, 2011)

thewall said:


> I also believe communism is evil. Communists like Stalin and Mao killed more people than Hitler ever did.



You do realize that Glenn Beck is a paranoid schizophrenic and a John Birch Society supporter, right?

NOW GET OFF MY PHONE, YOU NAZI LIBERAL COMMIE FASCIST!!!!!!!


----------



## thewall (Dec 8, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Right-wing sources such as these don't even make an attempt to rein in their biases, and in fact deliberately exaggerate their facts to be even further right to try to shift public perception of the "center" over to their side.  It's worked for thirty years, and the "center" is now just shy of insane Social Darwinist xenophobic fascism.
> 
> Find me anything Obama's done that's to the left of Nixon's campaign platform, I dare you.



From what I have learned from this is that the word "bias" has no meaning anymore.  It's just a word to bitch and moan for attention when you already have plenty.

Second of all, Nixon was a moderate.  And a stupid son of a bitch.

Third of all, fascist is another buzzword.  I wouldn't want to live under a socialist dictatorship, or a fascist dictatorship.  I don't even think fascism even has to be right wing.  Why the fuck are we discussing politics on FAF?  That's the last place to discuss anything of real importance.


----------



## Namba (Dec 8, 2011)

I believe that about 75% of the people you encounter are full of shit when they say they care.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 8, 2011)

thewall said:


> From what I have learned from this is that the word "bias" has no meaning anymore.  It's just a word to bitch and moan for attention when you already have plenty.



And nobody bitches about bias more than the right.  Look, you've given us two websites dedicated to whining about it already.



thewall said:


> Second of all, Nixon was a moderate.  And a stupid son of a bitch.



A moderate conservative but a conservative nonetheless, and Obama is not to the left of him.



thewall said:


> Third of all, fascist is another buzzword.  I wouldn't want to live under a socialist dictatorship, or a fascist dictatorship.  I don't even think fascism even has to be right wing.



Police power has grossly expanded, the government has grown more authoritarian, and free speech rights are diminishing.  These are all parts of fascism.



thewall said:


> Why the fuck are we discussing politics on FAF?  That's the last place to discuss anything of real importance.



Because you're losing.


----------



## thewall (Dec 8, 2011)

Lobar said:


> And nobody bitches about bias more than the right.  Look, you've given us two websites dedicated to whining about it already.



And Liberals deny their own bias all the time.  Bias exists, both liberal and conservative.  I usually call liberals out for denying their own.



> A moderate conservative but a conservative nonetheless, and Obama is not to the left of him.



Straw man argument.



> Police power has grossly expanded, the government has grown more authoritarian, and free speech rights are diminishing.  These are all parts of fascism.



It's also a part of socialism and communism.  The Republicans are socialist too.  You don't have to be right wing to be a fascist.  The fairness doctrine?  That was a liberal idea.  And it restricted freedom of speech.  Even if there is a right wing bias, it is because liberals are losing.  They aren't successful at talk radio unless they sap tax dollars and go onto NPR.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 8, 2011)

thewall said:


> The Republicans are socialist too.



I don't even...


----------



## Namba (Dec 8, 2011)

Oh my God!!! It... HURTS!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


----------



## Ricky (Dec 8, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Because you're losing.



Because he has a different opinion than most people on a board full of Liberals?

Wow, you must feel accomplished.



thewall said:


> It's also a part of socialism and communism.  The  Republicans are socialist too.  You don't have to be right wing to be a  fascist.  The fairness doctrine?  That was a liberal idea.  And it  restricted freedom of speech.  Even if there is a right wing bias, it is  because liberals are losing.  They aren't successful at talk radio  unless they sap tax dollars and go onto NPR.



That's no socialist but the fascist part I could see.

Republicans always erred on the side of "Government, stay the fuck out of my business" and this is something I agree with wholeheartedly.


----------



## thewall (Dec 8, 2011)

Ricky said:


> Because he has a different opinion than most people on a board full of Liberals?
> 
> Wow, you must feel accomplished.
> 
> ...



Fix'd it for you.  I don't really like republicans in general.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 8, 2011)

thewall said:


> And Liberals deny their own bias all the time.  Bias exists, both liberal and conservative.  I usually call liberals out for denying their own.



Please show me where all the liberal media is then, I'd like to have someone to listen to on the news that isn't a corpoation-fellating blowhard.



thewall said:


> Straw man argument.



I don't think you know what that means.  I argue there is no real liberal voice in American government today, and this demonstrates it.  No strawmen required.



thewall said:


> It's also a part of socialism and communism.  The Republicans are socialist too.  You don't have to be right wing to be a fascist.  The fairness doctrine?  That was a liberal idea.  And it restricted freedom of speech.  Even if there is a right wing bias, it is because liberals are losing.  They aren't successful at talk radio unless they sap tax dollars and go onto NPR.



No, it's a part of FASCISM.  That's the definition of what fascism is.  Socialism and communism are economic ideas and are not intrinsically linked to these things regardless of how it has been implemented in the past.

As for the business success of far-right talk radio, it only serves to show once again that blissful ignorance is easier to sell than hard truth.  As was the case in the 1980 election when Carter tried to warn of problems ahead (the same problems we're dealing with today) and what would be necessary to deal with them, and Reagan stood in front of America and declared it all to be "gobbledygook", and said that if we just didn't do anything, the economy would magically fix itself.  Ten years later, deregulation brought us the savings & loan crisis.


----------



## thewall (Dec 8, 2011)

Lobar said:


> No, it's a part of FASCISM.  That's the definition of what fascism is.  Socialism and communism are economic ideas and are not intrinsically linked to these things regardless of how it has been implemented in the past.
> 
> As for the business success of far-right talk radio, it only serves to show once again that blissful ignorance is easier to sell than hard truth.  As was the case in the 1980 election when Carter tried to warn of problems ahead (the same problems we're dealing with today) and what would be necessary to deal with them, and Reagan stood in front of America and declared it all to be "gobbledygook", and said that if we just didn't do anything, the economy would magically fix itself.  Ten years later, deregulation brought us the savings & loan crisis.



Because nothing says fascism like degregulation, fewer taxes, greater freedom of speech, giving people the freedom to succeed and fail on their own, and a weaker federal government.  A++ material.  :V

As for the economy, you have it completely wrong.  The crisis is due to regulations that republicans did not bother to get rid of (they promised, but they lied).  Banks were forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay it back.  Either that, or naked capitalism, which is just as evil as socialism.  Also due to getting off the gold standard, and replacing it with paper money, which gives the government complete control over the value of money.  Destroy the economy, and people will beg for a dictator.

Tell me, how would you feel if the fruit of your labor was constantly confiscated from you for "the greater good", whatever the hell it might be?  There is no compassion in such a system.  It's always confiscating someone else's property to give to another.  Can't one be compassionate with the money they own and give it away freely on their own free will?  It's by the threat of force, not by one's own free will, according to socialism and communism.  Socialism and Communism doesn't help people, it destroys their self worth.  There is no individuality in such a system.  Only easily replaceable cogs.  To destroy one person is no loss according to communism.  Mao took this to heart.  It's not the middle class that wants socialism.  It's the elitist snobs and entitled brats who want it.

Even if we needed welfare, let's make it short term welfare offered on the state level.  I'm willing to compromise.

To answer your last question, to determine what is left/right wing, we look inside the country.  Not out of it.  From our perspective, Europe is far left wing.  I take pride in the fact I don't live in Europe, no offense to anyone here.

I wish I could have an intelligent debate, but I can't identify with your brand of logic.  I could just as well be arguing with a christian fundamentalist.  What is especially sad about this is that I actually know reasonable liberals.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 8, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> One must have a degree of insanity to stay alive. If one were completely sane, they would realize a few things and denounce others.


Sanity can be described as either a lack of panic, or a status quotient that the state uses to rate someones level of judgment in accordance with their laws, and or their competence to judgment. I think you're using it with the belief that sanity and insanity can be rationalized as morally relativistic. So, a degree of "insanity" to stay alive, you say? And why believe this?



Grae Sparrowkin said:


> 1.Humans are just chemical reactions. There is really no reason to live.


So, what makes you believe those things exactly? I saw some of the exchange, but it seemed more like one party was trying to avoid accepting the importance of neuro-psychology and genetic psychology.


Grae Sparrowkin said:


> 3.With complete sanity, people can not accept the delusions of hope, love, religion, importance, etc. A combination of several of these delusions are necessary for a human to fight entropy.


Actually, we accept these "delusions" because they're real. We experience them not out of instruction, not out of delusion, but because they're all naturally occurring reactions in our bodies designed to reinforce basic, or advanced prerogatives of survival.

I also noticed that you didn't mention fear, and I assume this was because you thought fear was less of a delusion than love?


----------



## HeroHoxha (Dec 8, 2011)

thewall said:


> Tell me, how would you feel if the fruit of your labor was constantly confiscated from you for "the greater good", whatever the hell it might be?



This is the common error that capitalists either consciously or unconcsciously propagate. Socialism is about laborers earning the full value of their labor, rather than having the surplus value they create go into private hands. Here's an example:

Let's say you work in a coat factory and you work eight hours a day and earn an eight dollar hourly wage. That means you make sixty four dollars for one day of work. Now a good coat goes for what, one hundred fifty dollars at retail? So you're produce one coat for a meager payment, seeing as you are paid by the hour, and yet your boss, ceo, etc. rakes in one hundred fifty dollars PER coat. Now let's subtract your daily wage from the amount the coat is going to retail for (150-64=86). Where did the eighty six dollars come from? That is surplus value, ie. value that YOU created, but are not the beneficiary of, meaning your boss will have access to better healthcare, education, resources, etc. because of the exploitation of your labor. Now, a common counter-argument might be, "well, the boss/company has to pay for workers' benefits, utilities, etc.". True, but when they are profiting so much off just a single coat, imagine the rate of exploitation after selling a hundred or even a thousand coats. The wages of the employees and the boss are extremely disproportionate.

Now, under socialism, the surplus value created would either go directly back to the worker in the form of wages, or it will go to the state in order to fund better healthcare, education, resources for the majority of the population (of course, it would probably be a mix of both direct and indirect benefits). Now, I don't expect the capitalist state to nationalize and reorganize production and labor relations along socialist lines. Nationalization does not automatically equal socialism, as there is such a thing as state capitalism, meaning state enterprise function as independent bodies of production, using the rate of profit as the main economic motive for something being produced or not. A socialist economy makes use of cross-subsidization of heavy and light industry, with the entire economy functioning on the principle of human necessity. What this does is lead to a quantitative and qualitative leap in both consumer goods and industry. This is how you acheive the highest rate of economic growth without utilizing the private ownership of the means of production.


----------



## Bliss (Dec 8, 2011)

thewall said:


> greater freedom of speech


Funny considering that your heroes, such as Reagan, happen to be moral authoritarians.



> giving people the freedom to succeed and fail on their own


People do not succeed and fail on their own if they are not given a chance in either. Because that is _exactly_ what I can assume you are proposing and it is the status quo in the US and other countries, such as in the UK, where your position in life is effectively adamant from birth. Economic mobility happens in quantities only in countries with excessive social services (read: the ghetto kid actually _gets_ a chance).

But I suppose some things in life you do not want to see for your 'utopian' world is, as a matter of fact, a psychopathic one_._



> From our perspective, Europe is far left wing.  I take pride in the fact I don't live in Europe, no offense to anyone here.


I am pretty sure that any Nordic or (Western) European would say they are glad to have evaded America's political insanity and amoral perspective on social issues. 



> I wish I could have an intelligent debate, but I can't identify with  your brand of logic.  I could just as well be arguing with a christian  fundamentalist.  What is especially sad about this is that I actually  know reasonable liberals.


Well, _b'aww_. Sometimes it is good to be put in your place. :grin:


----------



## Spatel (Dec 8, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I have a massive boner for right wing dictatorships.



Considering the state of the US government for the past 30 years, you should probably call a doctor, because your erection is not supposed to last longer than 4 hours.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 8, 2011)

Unsurprisingly, since Reagan (take a drink!) was in power, income mobility in the US has actually decreased. (See http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2011/wp1110.pdf .) Deregulation and tax cuts have actually led to less opportunity and accelerating inequality. The truth here is obvious: "small government" policies are really meant to protect the affluent at the cost of the rest of the population. This should have become to apparent to everyone when the financial sector began to eclipse all manner of actually productive business, leeching money from real endeavors to fuel risky investments that would eventually collapse.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Unsurprisingly, since Reagan (take a drink!) was in power, income mobility in the US has actually decreased. (See http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2011/wp1110.pdf .) Deregulation and tax cuts have actually led to less opportunity and accelerating inequality. The truth here is obvious: "small government" policies are really meant to protect the affluent at the cost of the rest of the population. This should have become to apparent to everyone when the financial sector began to eclipse all manner of actually productive business, leeching money from real endeavors to fuel risky investments that would eventually collapse.



So you are basically saying Regan screwed us over?


----------



## Tycho (Dec 9, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> So you are basically saying Regan screwed us over?



That is an oversimplification but along the right line of thought.

and REAGAN, not Regan.  This is American politics, not fucking goddamn _King Lear_.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 9, 2011)

Tycho said:


> That is an oversimplification but along the right line of thought.
> 
> and REAGAN, not Regan.  This is American politics, not fucking goddamn _King Lear_.



What ever man. I just personally think that both the Democrat's and the Republicans need to stop fighting and start think about the American people. But with lobbyist that is kinda hard for them to do.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 9, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> What ever man. I just personally think that both the Democrat's and the Republicans need to stop fighting and start think about the American people. But with lobbyist that is kinda hard for them to do.



First: Fighting? I think the Dems need to fight HARDER.
Second: Lobbyists are not all EVIL CORPORATE SHILLS.  Some lobbyists lobby on behalf of organizations you might actually be a supporter of.  To generalize lobbyists and make it sound like a bad word - that is indicative of a lack of understanding of how politics works.


----------



## thewall (Dec 9, 2011)

HeroHoxha said:


> This is the common error that capitalists either consciously or unconcsciously propagate. Socialism is about laborers earning the full value of their labor, rather than having the surplus value they create go into private hands. Here's an example:
> 
> Let's say you work in a coat factory and you work eight hours a day and earn an eight dollar hourly wage. That means you make sixty four dollars for one day of work. Now a good coat goes for what, one hundred fifty dollars at retail? So you're produce one coat for a meager payment, seeing as you are paid by the hour, and yet your boss, ceo, etc. rakes in one hundred fifty dollars PER coat. Now let's subtract your daily wage from the amount the coat is going to retail for (150-64=86). Where did the eighty six dollars come from? That is surplus value, ie. value that YOU created, but are not the beneficiary of, meaning your boss will have access to better healthcare, education, resources, etc. because of the exploitation of your labor. Now, a common counter-argument might be, "well, the boss/company has to pay for workers' benefits, utilities, etc.". True, but when they are profiting so much off just a single coat, imagine the rate of exploitation after selling a hundred or even a thousand coats. The wages of the employees and the boss are extremely disproportionate.
> 
> Now, under socialism, the surplus value created would either go directly back to the worker in the form of wages, or it will go to the state in order to fund better healthcare, education, resources for the majority of the population (of course, it would probably be a mix of both direct and indirect benefits). Now, I don't expect the capitalist state to nationalize and reorganize production and labor relations along socialist lines. Nationalization does not automatically equal socialism, as there is such a thing as state capitalism, meaning state enterprise function as independent bodies of production, using the rate of profit as the main economic motive for something being produced or not. A socialist economy makes use of cross-subsidization of heavy and light industry, with the entire economy functioning on the principle of human necessity. What this does is lead to a quantitative and qualitative leap in both consumer goods and industry. This is how you acheive the highest rate of economic growth without utilizing the private ownership of the means of production.



Earning full wage.  Heh.  I wonder how the fuck the government will determine that.  I know employers take some of your earnings, but that's part of the contract.  It's there in black in white, clear as crystal.  With government, you don't have a choice.  I don't want to give government the power to do what I can do on my own.  I want the government to get the fuck out of my business.  Giving the government the power to do something they weren't intended to do previously is like giving food to a lion in hopes that it won't eat you.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 9, 2011)

thewall said:


> Earning full wage.  Heh.  I wonder how the fuck the government will determine that.  I know employers take some of your earnings, but that's part of the contract.  It's there in black in white, clear as crystal.  With government, you don't have a choice.  I don't want to give government the power to do what I can do on my own.  I want the government to get the fuck out of my business.  Giving the government the power to do something they weren't intended to do previously is like giving food to a lion in hopes that it won't eat you.



Your political dogma simply trades the whim of the government for the whim of the free market.  Believe it or don't, government can be made to be far more accountable than unregulated/minimally regulated private enterprise.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 9, 2011)

Tycho said:


> First: Fighting? I think the Dems need to fight HARDER.
> Second: Lobbyists are not all EVIL CORPORATE SHILLS.  Some lobbyists lobby on behalf of organizations you might actually be a supporter of.  To generalize lobbyists and make it sound like a bad word - that is indicative of a lack of understanding of how politics works.



I don't think money should be able to buy political power.

That's the very foundation of lobbying...


----------



## Tycho (Dec 9, 2011)

Ricky said:


> I don't think money should be able to buy political power.
> 
> That's the very foundation of lobbying...



The foundation of lobbying is "This group/entity would like you to consider X course of action.  We can do you a favor if you do us one." Sometimes the people in that lobby are people working for organizations you hold in some level of esteem, some times it's the private sector begging for permission/begging Mr. Politician to fuck their competition/the lay American in the ass.

Money buys political power right in front of your face every damn day, BTW.  Especially campaign financing, which sometimes the voters themselves choose to pay for.  Look at who finances whom.

There are some things about government and human nature itself that are INESCAPABLE.  Not un-combat-able, but still inescapable.  I don't care who promises you "smaller government", they are just creating a void that will HAPPILY be filled by people with even LESS of our interests in mind.


----------



## thewall (Dec 9, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Your political dogma simply trades the whim of the government for the whim of the free market.  Believe it or don't, government can be made to be far more accountable than unregulated/minimally regulated private enterprise.



I don't believe it.  How the fuck does government become more accountable?  It's already very unaccountable as it is.



Tycho said:


> The foundation of lobbying is "This group/entity  would like you to consider X course of action.  We can do you a favor if  you do us one." Sometimes the people in that lobby are people working  for organizations you hold in some level of esteem, some times it's the  private sector begging for permission/begging Mr. Politician to fuck  their competition/the lay American in the ass.
> 
> Money buys political power right in front of your face every damn day,  BTW.  Especially campaign financing, which sometimes the voters  themselves choose to pay for.  Look at who finances whom.
> 
> There are some things about government and human nature itself that are  INESCAPABLE.  Not un-combat-able, but still inescapable.  I don't care  who promises you "smaller government", they are just creating a void  that will HAPPILY be filled by people with even LESS of our interests in  mind.



The difference between you and me is that I don't trust the government as far as I can throw it.  In other words, the smaller it is, the more trustworthy it is.  I don't trust big business either, but the government is not a lesser evil.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 9, 2011)

thewall said:


> I don't believe it.  How the fuck does government become more accountable?  It's already very unaccountable as it is.



Need I remind every american we have a serious issue here with Bill 1867.


----------



## thewall (Dec 9, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> Need I remind every american we have a serious issue here with Bill 1867.



If that is passed, the Tea party is fucked as well.  I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, I don't know who had the balls to write that law.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 9, 2011)

thewall said:


> I don't believe it.  How the fuck does government become more accountable?  It's already very unaccountable as it is.



We have some ability to influence government and who comprises it, as well as what legislation gets brought before the Houses.  (A lot of people are too stupid to wield this power effectively, but...) The citizenry doesn't pick CEOs and branch managers.  The citizenry does not pick private business policies.




Dragonfurry said:


> Need I remind every american we have a serious issue here with Bill 1867.



Yes, I know about and am displeased with NDAA.  That said, Alex Jones is batshit insane and posting a link to any site associated with him is a shot in the foot.


----------



## thewall (Dec 9, 2011)

Tycho said:


> We have some ability to influence government and who comprises it, as well as what legislation gets brought before the Houses.  (A lot of people are too stupid to wield this power effectively, but...) The citizenry doesn't pick CEOs and branch managers.  The citizenry does not pick private business policies.



They can, however, pick who is going to hire them, and if that doesn't float their boat, the government should give more freedom to start their own business.  WITHOUT REGULATION GETTING IN THE WAY.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 9, 2011)

thewall said:


> They can, however, pick who is going to hire them



Have you seen the unemployment lately?  Get real.



thewall said:


> and if that doesn't float their boat, the government should give more freedom to start their own business.  WITHOUT REGULATION GETTING IN THE WAY.



Tell big business to stop hiding behind the little guys to ward off regulation on THEMSELVES, then.


----------



## thewall (Dec 9, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Have you seen the unemployment lately?  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell big business to stop hiding behind the little guys to ward off regulation on THEMSELVES, then.



I believe this discussion is getting us nowhere, and we have to stop because neither of us is going to budge an inch.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 9, 2011)

thewall said:


> I believe this discussion is getting us nowhere, and we have to stop because neither of us is going to budge an inch.



No, its just not going anywhere with you.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 9, 2011)

thewall said:


> I believe this discussion is getting us nowhere, and we have to stop because neither of us is going to budge an inch.



I believe you have a crappy avatar. :V


----------



## HeroHoxha (Dec 9, 2011)

thewall said:


> Earning full wage. Heh. I wonder how the fuck the government will determine that.



Uhh, it's called determining the cost of labor and production, while taking into account the amount of labor spent on producing a certain good or service. The amount of profit generated will return to the workers through either direct or indirect benefits, like I stated above. I'd recommend reading "Wage Labor and Capital," or "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR," if you want to find out exactly how all of this is figured out. Of course, you won't do this because it would break apart your preconceived world view (Europe sucks, socialism sucks, mass murdering leftists, 'MERICA FUCK YEAH, etc., etc.). Plus, I'm not going to take the time to flip through the pages and type out a bunch of economic formulas and logic.



thewall said:


> I know employers take some of your earnings, but that's part of the contract. It's there in black in white, clear as crystal.



So you admit capitalism is exploitative of one's labor? Neat. Sounds like we're making progress.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 9, 2011)

A long as the Republicans and Democrats dance around adjustments to the income tax, nothing will be done to address the problem of the shrinking middle class.  The poor are protected from paying any income tax because of tax credits, personal exemptions and the like.  The rich have tax shelters and ways to hide their income, and worst of all: "old money" needs only to pull enough from their investments to live and play with, so they only claim as much income as they spend.  Such people can live very comfortable lifestyles on $200k/yr, when a professional in San Francisco or New York may bust their ass for $200k/yr but they don't own a mansion in the Hamptons that's paid for, so a lot of that money's just going to pay for the downtown condo they're renting.

The problem is that the rich can hide their money from the tax man.  Well, they can't hide the house they live in.  The solution to the dwindling middle tax and the massive public debt is to go after the estates of the rich, not their annual income.  How do you do that?  Property taxes.

In the 1980s, in addition to the public tax changes that Reagan championed, there was another a major shift in local tax policy that started in California and was adopted in many places that are now suffering huge budget deficits: property tax freezes.  It was done under the guise of "don't let retirees get taxed out of their homes" but it wasn't meant to protect retirees.  It was meant to protect those living in Beverly Hills and other similar places.  In California, property taxes largely funded schools and universities.  In the early 1980s CA schools were among the best in the nation.  Today's they're among the worst.

So the solution to see is perfectly clear: communities with a property tax freeze should lift it and ease back in realistic property tax taxes, and estates valued at $1mil or more should be subject to a federal property tax.

Of course, this will never happen.  Why?  Because those in power, Republicans and Democrats alike, are the ones would would have the foot the bill with this plan.  Members of Congress, especially those in the Senate, don't just represent the ultra-rich, they *are* the ultra-rich!  So of course, they're going to propose income tax hikes... because it won't hurt them nearly as much as it would hit the middle class.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 9, 2011)

The problem with property taxes is that the housing market can be ridiculously speculative. One reason states like Florida were hit so hard by the recession was that they relied heavily on property taxes to fund state and local government. When the bubble burst, tax revenue plummeted and the government was forced to implement wide-ranging cuts, further fueling the economic decline.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 9, 2011)

Well, if I recall correctly, Florida ONLY relies on property taxes.  That's going to the other end of the extreme.  I'm just tried of hearing ppl in Congress dancing around raising the income tax rates for practically anyone with a job & a college degree when ppl in Beverly Hills pay less in property taxes on $20million estates than my father does on his house that's worth $250,000 (and is still overpriced, imo) just because they bought their home in 1985 and never moved.  That type of crap is why CA in financial ruin, and I see no reason why the federal government shouldn't be going after the estates of the ultra-rich too.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 9, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Well, if I recall correctly, Florida ONLY relies on property taxes.



Florida has no income tax, but does impose a sales tax. I think I'd prefer the income tax over the sales tax.



> That's going to the other end of the extreme.  I'm just tried of hearing ppl in Congress dancing around raising the income tax rates for practically anyone with a job & a college degree when ppl in Beverly Hills pay less in property taxes on $20million estates than my father does on his house that's worth $250,000 (and is still overpriced, imo) just because they bought their home in 1985 and never moved.  That type of crap is why CA in financial ruin, and I see no reason why the federal government shouldn't be going after the estates of the ultra-rich too.



I think everyone would agree that California is completely screwed; I'm surprised they managed to avoid actual bankruptcy at the height of the recession. However, property values are subject to rather extreme fluctuations, and a true wealth tax on the entirety of the estate would be more balanced. The value of property as a percentage of one's total wealth can vary greatly for the middle class depending on the market and location.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Dec 9, 2011)

I believe political debates are hilarious.


----------



## Spatel (Dec 10, 2011)

thewall said:


> I don't believe it.  How the fuck does government become more accountable?  It's already very unaccountable as it is.



A business is a feudal autocracy. In a country with limited or no government, businesses become de-facto governments--worse ones than any democracy would ever be. Corporations control our government, and they have for quite some time.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 10, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Florida has no income tax, but does impose a sales tax. I think I'd prefer the income tax over the sales tax.



  Ah.  Sorry; I thought Florida was one of the states w/o a sales tax too.



Onnes said:


> I think everyone would agree that California is completely screwed; I'm surprised they managed to avoid actual bankruptcy at the height of the recession. However, property values are subject to rather extreme fluctuations, and a true wealth tax on the entirety of the estate would be more balanced. The value of property as a percentage of one's total wealth can vary greatly for the middle class depending on the market and location.


I'd totally support a wealth tax, so long as someone figures out a way to prevent rich dudes from cheating.  I could easily see someone switching their investments from something easy to track (like stocks & bonds) into something more difficult to track (like gold) just to avoid the tax man.


----------



## thewall (Dec 10, 2011)

I believe it is wrong to claim that there are only two evils to choose: big business and big government.  They are butt buddies, after all.  As a libertarian, I don't trust either, and I don't trouble myself with "which one should I choose?"  Besides, socialism can be exploited by evil greedy people very easily.  Plenty of rich elitists support socialism.

http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not-Hypocrisy/dp/0385513496


http://books.google.com/books?id=ZZ...rnment+and+big+business&source=gbs_navlinks_s


----------



## Rotsala (Dec 10, 2011)

I think Duke Nukem Forever was okay


----------



## Spatel (Dec 10, 2011)

thewall said:


> I believe it is wrong to claim that there are only two evils to choose: big business and big government.  They are butt buddies, after all. * As a libertarian, I don't trust either*, and I don't trouble myself with "which one should I choose?"  Besides, socialism can be exploited by evil greedy people very easily.  Plenty of rich elitists support socialism.



This is a contradictory statement. Libertarians support unregulated capitalist markets, which means big business. You are willing to trust private organizations to be on their best behavior without any legal safeguards to ensure it, based on the ahistorical idea that 'bad behavior' is never profitable. 

To your second point--being rich does not automatically make someone greedy, nor does being a socialist automatically mean someone can't be rich and keep a moral conscience that is consistent with their politics, unless they're a revolutionary marxist. I'm going by the actual definition of socialist here, by the way, not the center-left politicians or actors that usually get accused of it, when they merely support social democracy.


----------



## thewall (Dec 10, 2011)

Spatel said:


> This is a contradictory statement. Libertarians support unregulated capitalist markets, which means big business. You are willing to trust private organizations to be on their best behavior without any legal safeguards to ensure it, based on the ahistorical idea that 'bad behavior' is never profitable.
> 
> To your second point--being rich does not automatically make someone greedy, nor does being a socialist automatically mean someone can't be rich and keep a moral conscience that is consistent with their politics, unless they're a revolutionary marxist. I'm going by the actual definition of socialist here, by the way, not the center-left politicians or actors that usually get accused of it, when they merely support social democracy.



Socialism just makes it easier for greedy people to manipulate the system.  It's also ironic that most people who support socialism are corrupt, moneygrubbers themselves.  I even posted a link to a book that describes this.  Greed is everywhere.  It's in big business, it is in government.


----------



## Namba (Dec 10, 2011)

I believe online debates are much easier than the face-to-face debates that don't include a google search bar for all the information you could possibly need. Looking smart has never been easier.


----------



## HeroHoxha (Dec 11, 2011)

thewall said:


> Socialism just makes it easier for greedy people to manipulate the system. It's also ironic that most people who support socialism are corrupt, moneygrubbers themselves.



You haven't read a single post of mine, have you?


----------



## Namba (Dec 11, 2011)

I believe John Wayne was the Chuck Norris of his time.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 11, 2011)

thewall said:


> Socialism just makes it easier for greedy people to manipulate the system.  It's also ironic that most people who support socialism are corrupt, moneygrubbers themselves.  I even posted a link to a book that describes this.  Greed is everywhere.  It's in big business, it is in government.



Socialism =/= Autocracy

Learn your shit yo.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 11, 2011)

Luti Kriss said:


> I believe online debates are much easier than the face-to-face debates that don't include a google search bar for all the information you could possibly need. Looking smart has never been easier.


...and yet many people manage to look like complete idiots anyway!


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Dec 11, 2011)

Stalin?  Great guy


----------



## HeroHoxha (Dec 12, 2011)

indeed


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 12, 2011)

Rotsala said:


> I think Duke Nukem Forever was okay


But it was *just* okay.

I believe that if there is a single 'root of all evil' in modern society, it's the preservation of the beliefs of ancient times when we can do better.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 12, 2011)

Luti Kriss said:


> I believe John Wayne was the Chuck Norris of his time.





Crusader Mike said:


> Socialism =/= Autocracy
> 
> Learn your shit yo.



I believe these 2 are retards for taking Fenrari's avatar.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Dec 12, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe these 2 are retards for taking Fenrari's avatar.



There's more than two.

People need to park in their driveway. That's why it's there. I'm tired of jigsawwing my way through cars in what is supposed to be a clear street.


----------



## Bliss (Dec 12, 2011)

I believe these avatar memes should be prohibited.

Sorry, sweethearts. :F


----------



## thewall (Dec 12, 2011)

I loved this movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry's_War_(1981_film)


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 12, 2011)

I believe this film is the best ever made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_(film)


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 12, 2011)

I believe invoking Godwin is* flattering *in some cases.


----------



## thewall (Dec 12, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Stalin?  Great guy



He was an asshole.  Not as much as Mao was, though.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 12, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe these 2 are retards for taking Fenrari's avatar.



you're upset because no one expressed interest in appropriating and adulterating your avatar


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 12, 2011)

I believe this thread has gone very well, considering the topic.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 12, 2011)

I agree with Kit. 

Cheers to all of you.

I believe that Christmas may not have been the true DOB of this Jesus of Nazareth, considering they made sure to put this christian holiday overtop several pagan and roman ones so that it would be easier for people to convert.

attack me.


----------



## 8-bit (Dec 12, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> I agree with Kit.
> 
> Cheers to all of you.
> 
> ...




This is very close to being fact.







I believe that if it's part of a species that is  human-level sentient, it's aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalright


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 12, 2011)

I believe allowing the formation of modern Israel was an idiotic move, considering Judaism had a 4000-year head start on Nazism with regard to ultranationalism.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 12, 2011)

thewall said:


> He was an asshole.  Not as much as Mao was, though.



You should be sent far far away for dare saying such things against the Glorious Comrade!

People these days...ugh no respect.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 12, 2011)

I believe the teaching of, or even the acknowledgement of creationism should be illegalized in all schools. Once and for all.


----------



## thewall (Dec 12, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I believe the teaching of, or even the acknowledgement of creationism should be illegalized in all schools. Once and for all.



I believe in the freedom of religious expression by students and teachers in schools.  Just as long as religion is not actually taught.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 12, 2011)

thewall said:


> I believe in the freedom of religious expression by students and teachers in schools. Just as long as religion is not actually taught.


Will you say that when the occultists start sacrificing pets on the grounds?


----------



## Namba (Dec 12, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe these 2 are retards for taking Fenrari's avatar.


I believe shut up.


----------



## thewall (Dec 12, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Will you say that when the occultists start sacrificing pets on the grounds?



There's a time and a place for everything.  Merely talking about religion on the grounds isn't offensive, is it?  Only if you are a wuss.  You're not even comparing apples to grapes.  More like apples to uranium ore.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 12, 2011)

thewall said:


> There's a time and a place for everything. Merely talking about religion on the grounds isn't offensive, is it? Only if you are a wuss. You're not even comparing apples to grapes. More like apples to uranium ore.



No, I must concede that is isn't. I can't hurl rotten citrus fruit at something I can't talk about, now can I?

ON-topic, I believe the violently insane should be put down like rabid dogs.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 12, 2011)

thewall said:


> I believe in the freedom of religious expression by students and teachers in schools.  Just as long as religion is not actually taught.


The problem is, if you want to teach Christian Creationism on this excuse, you have to teach every other creation myth of non-dead (and, possibly, dead) religions as well. And you just _know_ that there would be an absolute _shit-fit_ by parents because that "Goddamn Heathen Religion" (Inset what you want there: Hinduism, Greek Mythology, Babylonian religious concepts, etcetera) _dares_ to be treated as though it's just as plausible as their religion. Hell, the greatest way to kill teaching Creationism in school is just that: Legalize a class on all Religious Creation Myths, and watch as parents go bonkers because you implied their religion is not the only true choice [oh man, imagine the shitfest that would ensue if the classes caused someone to convert from Christianity: It'd be eaten up by the media within days].


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 12, 2011)

Attaman said:


> The problem is, if you want to teach Christian Creationism on this excuse, you have to teach every other creation myth of non-dead (and, possibly, dead) religions as well. And you just _know_ that there would be an absolute _shit-fit_ by parents because that "Goddamn Heathen Religion" (Inset what you want there: Hinduism, Greek Mythology, Babylonian religious concepts, etcetera) _dares_ to be treated as though it's just as plausible as their religion. Hell, the greatest way to kill teaching Creationism in school is just that: Legalize a class on all Religious Creation Myths, and watch as parents go bonkers because you implied their religion is not the only true choice [oh man, imagine the shitfest that would ensue if the classes caused someone to convert from Christianity: It'd be eaten up by the media within days].



My school system had one of these classes, it was masked over with the title "Myths and Legends"  We learned several creation theories and had speakers from different groups come in and talk... the biggest one we did NOT learn was Christianity's.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 12, 2011)

thewall said:


> I believe it is wrong to claim that there are only two evils to choose: big business and big government.  They are butt buddies, after all.



Not always.  At the turn of the 20th century up through the Great Depression, it was only big business.  Big government came about to hold big business in check and prevent such a disaster again.  The problem now is that, unable to destroy it, big business subverted the government to serve its own ends.  It's big business and *corrupt* government that are at the root of today's problems

This is the treachery of conservative economics: by preaching that government in and of itself is the problem, they convince well-meaning people to complete the coup that they could not.  With the government totally removed from the equation, big business will fill the vacuum and literally own us.  Government needs to be _restored_, not removed.


----------



## thewall (Dec 12, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> You should be sent far far away for dare saying such things against the Glorious Comrade!
> 
> People these days...ugh no respect.



Respect?  I show just as respect to your glorious comrade as I do to Adolf Hitler.  They both deserve just as much respect.  In other words:  NONE.



Lobar said:


> Not always.  At the turn of the 20th century up through the Great Depression, it was only big business.  Big government came about to hold big business in check and prevent such a disaster again.  The problem now is that, unable to destroy it, big business subverted the government to serve its own ends.  It's big business and *corrupt* government that are at the root of today's problems
> 
> This is the treachery of conservative economics: by preaching that government in and of itself is the problem, they convince well-meaning people to complete the coup that they could not.  With the government totally removed from the equation, big business will fill the vacuum and literally own us.  Government needs to be _restored_, not removed.



Both are the problem.  Big government and Big business support each other all the time.  A lot of socialists are big businessmen.  Again, socialism doesn't solve the problem.  It only gives the greedy moneygrubbers more tools to work with.  Like working a deal out with the government and such.  Manipulating, bribing, etc.  As a conservative, I think the problem is BOTH.


I also believe Kit is a hypocritical bigot.  Do we have to censor freedom of speech in schools?


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 12, 2011)

thewall said:


> Respect?  I show just as respect to your glorious comrade as I do to Adolf Hitler.  They both deserve just as much respect.  In other words:  NONE.
> 
> 
> 
> Both are the problem.  Big government and Big business support each other all the time.  A lot of socialists are big businessmen.  Again, socialism doesn't solve the problem.  It only gives the greedy moneygrubbers more tools to work with.  Like working a deal out with the government and such.  Manipulating, bribing, etc.  As a conservative, I think *the problem is BOTH.*



And yet you'd further compromise one to the great gain of the other.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 12, 2011)

thewall said:


> I also believe Kit is a hypocritical bigot.  Do we have to censor freedom of speech in schools?


 You're free to believe in the Christian Creation Myth. Heck, you're free to say you believe such in school. However, School is for _education_, not religious dogma (unless, of course, you're going to a private school with that as its function). Just as you would not allow a school to teach that Jews are the Illuminati controlling the world as a viable alternative to World Politics, you should not allow a school to teach that Creationism is the origin of species / the world / the universe over standard science classes. You can possibly offer it as an elective class on the subject of Creation Myths in general (if you're going to have it on specific religions, the class should be purely optional and you should have at least one other religion / culture's creation myths taught at the same time in a brother / sister class), but it has _zero_ place as a replacement / alternative to science classes. 

If it's "unfair" to Christians because it says something against their faith, well, too bad, you lost the ability to play that card long ago. About the time when coinage changed to "In God We Trust", or maybe when Atheists became one of the most distrusted groups in America, definitely when Sexual Education was replaced with Abstinence programs.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 12, 2011)

thewall said:


> Respect?  I show just as respect to your glorious comrade as I do to Adolf Hitler.  They both deserve just as much respect.  In other words:  NONE.


:l Dude. I'm 95% positive C-Mike was joking.

Also, avoid taking Antonin Scalia seriously.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 12, 2011)

I believe that the 'first world' has better things to do than changing the 'third world's' diaper and wiping its ass. I also believe that there is a 'White Man's Burden' of sorts; that being the reeking bin of ass-turbans accumulated from all the times developed countries meddled in undeveloped countries' dirty business.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 12, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I believe that the 'first world' has better things to do than changing the 'third world's' diaper and wiping its ass.


 How about when the First World causes the issues in the first place? For instance, invading a nation and leaving it with a crumbling infrastructure, or goading a certain party to power to spite another First / Second World power?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 12, 2011)

Attaman said:


> How about when the First World causes the issues in the first place? For instance, invading a nation and leaving it with a crumbling infrastructure, or goading a certain party to power to spite another First / Second World power?



Did you stop reading halfway through the post?


----------



## Lobar (Dec 12, 2011)

thewall said:


> Both are the problem.  Big government and Big business support each other all the time.  A lot of socialists are big businessmen.  Again, socialism doesn't solve the problem.  It only gives the greedy moneygrubbers more tools to work with.  Like working a deal out with the government and such.  Manipulating, bribing, etc.  As a conservative, I think the problem is BOTH.



This is a tossed salad of talking points, not a logically thought-out flow of cause and effect.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 12, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Did you stop reading halfway through the post?


No, more I couldn't understand what you meant with "that being the reeking bin of ass-turbans accumulated from all the times developed countries meddled in undeveloped countries' dirty business," and what I did gather didn't sound right as it implied the only place First World nations fuck with Third World is the Middle East.


----------



## Kapherdel (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm going to get some hate for this.  I honestly really dislike it when people mourn over the death of a child over the death of an adult.  Sure, they are innocent, and never had a chance to start life, but that's the thing.  Adults had a chance to get into life, to learn, to have a stronger relationship with other people, to explore life more.  Kids are fantastic, but the death of an adult should be far worse.  For all of the above reasons.

I am not saying that the death of a child shouldn't be mourned, or treated with any less respect, but when someone in their 40's (example) dies and people spend two days mourning over it, but when a 3 month old child (example) dies and people spend days and weeks mourning, it makes that 40 year old, who probably had a great amount of experience in life, and has a far more of a relationship with friends and family look like nothing.

Flame away.


----------



## johnpm995 (Dec 12, 2011)

Kapherdel said:


> I'm going to get some hate for this.  I honestly really dislike it when people mourn over the death of a child over the death of an adult.  Sure, they are innocent, and never had a chance to start life, but that's the thing.  Adults had a chance to get into life, to learn, to have a stronger relationship with other people, to explore life more.  Kids are fantastic, but the death of an adult should be far worse.  For all of the above reasons.
> 
> I am not saying that the death of a child shouldn't be mourned, or treated with any less respect, but when someone in their 40's (example) dies and people spend two days mourning over it, but when a 3 month old child (example) dies and people spend days and weeks mourning, it makes that 40 year old, who probably had a great amount of experience in life, and has a far more of a relationship with friends and family look like nothing.
> 
> Flame away.


Really, I just say mourn any death equally. Death is sad no matter who it is.


----------



## HeroHoxha (Dec 13, 2011)

thewall said:


> Respect? I show just as respect to your glorious comrade as I do to Adolf Hitler. They both deserve just as much respect. In other words: NONE.




That's right. ACT LIKE MY POSTS DON'T EXIST!!!! PLEEEAAASSSEEEE!!!!!!


----------



## NerdyMunk (Dec 13, 2011)

As of this moment, I believe my friends are useless.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 13, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> I believe that Christmas may not have been the true DOB of this Jesus of Nazareth, considering they made sure to put this christian holiday overtop several pagan and roman ones so that it would be easier for people to convert.
> 
> attack me.



Actually, that's kind of DUH


----------



## Kapherdel (Dec 13, 2011)

johnpm995 said:


> Really, I just say mourn any death equally. Death is sad no matter who it is.



Yes, I agree.  But when it isn't mourned equally, that was my point.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 13, 2011)

I believe we should cast all delusion's aside about our goverment caring about the American people and prepare for either a war or a revolution.


----------



## thewall (Dec 13, 2011)

Look, C-mike may be joking, but that isn't a laughing matter.  How the fuck would everyone react if I joked around about being a nazi skinhead?  You'd flog me to death!  He should also use :V.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 13, 2011)

thewall said:


> Look, C-mike may be joking, but that isn't a laughing matter.  How the fuck would everyone react if I joked around about being a nazi skinhead?  You'd flog me to death!  He should also use :V.


I've made such jokes and gotten neutral/positive responses. (I am by no means a Nazi-sympathizer if you're wondering. I am basically the opposite of a Nazi-sympathizer, in fact. The idea of living in a Nazi-dominated society scares the shit out of me.) It's an issue of timing, presentation, etc., it takes sort of a knack. I guess Crusader might be wise to use the V, but honestly he's so over the top that it's hard not to realize he's joking. If you didn't catch it, you know, that's okay, I don't think you're stupid for it or anything, everyone makes such stumbles here and there. I sure as shit do, my grasp of sarcasm/irony is pretty tenuous. But remember it for next time. Next time you're responding to something that's really over-the-top offensive/stupid, calm down, give it another read, and see if it doesn't work if you try to give it a joke tone. If you're absolutely unsure, then respond with a serious post, but start it off with, "I'm not sure if you're joking or not. If you are joking, I'm sorry, I couldn't really tell for sure," or something like that.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 13, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I've made such jokes and gotten neutral/positive responses. (I am by no means a Nazi-sympathizer if you're wondering. I am basically the opposite of a Nazi-sympathizer, in fact. The idea of living in a Nazi-dominated society scares the shit out of me.) It's an issue of timing, presentation, etc., it takes sort of a knack. I guess Crusader might be wise to use the V, but honestly he's so over the top that it's hard not to realize he's joking. If you didn't catch it, you know, that's okay, I don't think you're stupid for it or anything, everyone makes such stumbles here and there. I sure as shit do, my grasp of sarcasm/irony is pretty tenuous. But remember it for next time. Next time you're responding to something that's really over-the-top offensive/stupid, calm down, give it another read, and see if it doesn't work if you try to give it a joke tone. If you're absolutely unsure, then respond with a serious post, but start it off with, "I'm not sure if you're joking or not. If you are joking, I'm sorry, I couldn't really tell for sure," or something like that.



I like to leave it hanging there with no clarification


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 13, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I like to leave it hanging there with no clarification


Clear communication is a virtue, my friend. You're a smart and likeable fella, I'm sure; you wouldn't want people getting this impression. ("Moron" can be swapped out for just about any unpleasantry, of course.)


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 13, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Clear communication is a virtue, my friend. You're a smart and likeable fella, I'm sure; you wouldn't want people getting this impression. ("Moron" can be swapped out for just about any unpleasantry, of course.)



Lol'd at that.

Also I think its better to have ideas. I mean you can change a idea,changing a belief is harder.


----------



## eversleep (Dec 13, 2011)

Retards are annoying and unnecessary and should not be allowed in places with lots of sane people.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 13, 2011)

eversleep said:


> Retards are annoying and unnecessary and should not be allowed in places with lots of sane people.



Retards... define retard for me, Eversleep.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 13, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Retards... define retard for me, Eversleep.



I think he himself fits the definition quite well... but that's MY definition of "retard" :3c


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 13, 2011)

Tycho said:


> I think he himself fits the definition quite well... but that's MY definition of "retard" :3c



You take my fun away every time, Tycho! No fair! I'm gonna pout now.

I believe that there are very good things here and that people would gain from watching all three parts of it.


----------



## Shred Uhh Sore Us (Dec 14, 2011)

eversleep said:


> Retards are annoying and unnecessary and should not be allowed in places with lots of sane people.



I believe I just couldn't help but lol when I read this. I also believe that such people should be exterminated as they are just a burden on the human race and contribute absolutely nothing.

I believe that anybody who can make the conscious decision to follow a religion is either ignorant, arrogant, or both.

I believe that vegans are self righteous douche bags that don't truly understand how the food chain is supposed to work.

I believe that anybody who ever speaks in "ebonics" in a serious manner should be shot on site, no questions asked.

I believe that there should be a salary cap, and a limit on how many children one is allowed to have and preventative measures taken when one reaches said limit(yes, I support socialism).

I believe the United States of America would be better off ran by a group of monkeys than its current leaders.

I believe that too many people were expecting "change" in the USA to happen almost overnight and are just blaming Obama because they don't really know who else to blame.

I believe that abortion should be 100% legal and in some cases, mandatory.

I believe that if I work my ass off and get hurt at work and have to take a drug test to receive compensation, then people collecting any type of government assistance should have to pass even more extensive(and periodic) drug tests AND a background check in order to receive so much as food stamps.

I believe that this post is enough to piss a lot of people off.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 14, 2011)

eversleep said:


> Retards are annoying and unnecessary and should not be allowed in places with lots of sane people.


Urrrgh....I used to work in a pet store as cage cleaner. I felt like I was in a cage as well, while the circus freaks stared at me and swatted at the glass like hungry zombies. It was miserable. Not to mention the puppies came from a corporation that is basically a puppy mill chain.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 14, 2011)

I believe that the "Bear Jew" from the movie Inglorious Bastards is one of the most badass mofo I know.


----------



## Dreaming (Dec 14, 2011)

I believe that this is truth. 

I also believe that if there's anyone out there getting all offended by posts in this thread, then they shouldn't be reading this thread. If they're offended by differing opinions in general then the internet is definitely not the place for them, never mind forums.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 14, 2011)

Shred Uhh Sore Us said:


> I believe I just couldn't help but lol when I read this. I also believe that such people should be exterminated as they are just a burden on the human race and contribute absolutely nothing.
> 
> I believe that anybody who can make the conscious decision to follow a religion is either ignorant, arrogant, or both.
> 
> ...


Genocide of a group of people? Check. 
Rub it in your face atheism? Check.
A little racism? Check.
Being Pro-Choice but not advocating the "choice" part? Check. 

This post literally made me gag in disgust at how full of hate and inhumane advocacy it is.

I agree with a lot of the other stuff though. As a medical marijuana advocate though the drug testing of disabled who may legitimately need medical marijuana because it is the only thing that works (many people do not get effects from painkillers and painkillers are also a lot more harmful in the long run and make you more nonfunctional) would hurt a lot of people. Specifically it'd fuck my boyfriend over and that isn't fair because he doesn't do any other drugs.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 14, 2011)

I believe that religion is a tool to control the masses, but hey let them believe it.

I believe that music is a great tool to express ones self and find out some of who you are.

I believe that Books are the best thing in the world(next to love) and we should preserve and write even more wonderful books.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 14, 2011)

eversleep said:


> Retards are annoying and unnecessary and should not be allowed in places with lots of sane people.





Shred Uhh Sore Us said:


> I believe I just couldn't help but lol when I read this. I also believe that such people should be exterminated as they are just a burden on the human race and contribute absolutely nothing.





Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Urrrgh....I used to work in a pet store as cage cleaner. I felt like I was in a cage as well, while the circus freaks stared at me and swatted at the glass like hungry zombies. It was miserable. Not to mention the puppies came from a massive corporation that is basically a puppy mill chain.


I'll eat my hat if any of you have contributed more to the world than Temple Grandin.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 14, 2011)

Shred Uhh Sore Us said:


> I believe the United States of America would be better off run by a group of monkeys other than its current leaders.


Fixed.


----------



## Bliss (Dec 14, 2011)

I believe religion is silly and the only thing revered should be the liberal demon.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 14, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Also you should only be able to immigrate if you know at least ONE of the native languages.


This many times over. 
...but SHOT? Seriously? You really think you're good enough to hit Speedy Gonzales?!


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 14, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I believe in deporting all illegal immigrants; and installing a "you cross, you get shot" policy.
> 
> Also you should only be able to immigrate if you know at least ONE of the native languages.



Ok you need to hear this from me.

First off you think that shooting people that try to cross the border should be legal? WRONG Sir! They are human being's like you and me and you shouldn't think of them as parasites. Secondly, How would it look to other countries if we should down human being's because they want to come to the land of oppurtunity? We would look like a bunch of assholes that doesnt like any foreigners in our country.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 14, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> First off you think that shooting people that try to cross the border should be legal? WRONG Sir! They are human being's like you and me and you shouldn't think of them as parasites. Secondly, How would it look to other countries if we should down human being's because they want to come to the land of oppurtunity? We would look like a bunch of assholes that doesnt like any foreigners in our country.



(Incoming appalling belief)

Who gives a fuck if they are human?

I believe that Society will and always has been incredibly unequal.


----------



## Ilse (Dec 14, 2011)

Bacon is _okay_. The fact that it's 90% greasy fat and 10% delicious red meat is pretty off-putting. Never had it super crispy + salty though, maybe that'll change my mind?   

There is my extremely debatable offensive controversial 2 cents to this topic


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 14, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> (Incoming appalling belief)
> 
> Who gives a fuck if they are human?
> 
> I believe that Society will and always has been incredibly unequal.



I do. If you dont that is fine but I think that society should be equal (even though that is impossible).


----------



## Bliss (Dec 14, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I believe in deporting all illegal immigrants; and installing a "you cross, you get shot" policy.





Kit H. Ruppell said:


> This many times over.


Evolution of my face since reading these posts.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 14, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Actually, that's kind of DUH



Aleu, should I pm you the link to my facebook page so you can tell that to the dumbasses who think I'm wrong?


----------



## Namba (Dec 14, 2011)

eversleep said:


> Retards are annoying and unnecessary and should not be allowed in places with lots of sane people.


Lovely


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 14, 2011)

I believe that being the object of ridicule from time to time is a relatively small price to pay for an otherwise guaranteed free ride through life.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 14, 2011)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Aleu, should I pm you the link to my facebook page so you can tell that to the dumbasses who think I'm wrong?



I'd have to be friends with you to comment but SURE. Expect a friend request from Luke when you do.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 14, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I believe in deporting all illegal immigrants; and installing a "you cross, you get shot" policy.



If Iran had shot those two Americans that had crossed their border while hiking, we would have collectively flipped our shit.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Traven V (Dec 14, 2011)

There is still hope for the human race XD


----------



## Namba (Dec 14, 2011)

Traven V said:


> There is still hope for the human race XD


I believe _Idiocracy_ is a more likely outcome.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 14, 2011)

Traven V said:


> There is still hope for the human race XD


 I think the OP was asking for things that'd appall other people in general, not other Furry Forums in general.


----------



## eversleep (Dec 14, 2011)

Tycho said:


> I think he himself fits the definition quite well... but that's MY definition of "retard" :3c


Not nice.  I'm not retarded.





Shred Uhh Sore Us said:


> I believe I just couldn't help but lol when I read this. I also believe that such people should be exterminated as they are just a burden on the human race and contribute absolutely nothing.
> 
> I believe that anybody who can make the conscious decision to follow a religion is either ignorant, arrogant, or both.
> 
> ...


Marry me. <3
I actually would ONLY consider veganism (and have, before) because of health benefits. Less animal products = less fat, less cholesterol, etc. But if the meat is from an animal that wasn't abused, I don't see a problem with it. Also I thought I'd get thinner if I went vegan. >.> Lol. But vegan shit tastes nasty.





Ad Hoc said:


> I'll eat my hat if any of you have contributed more to the world than Temple Grandin.


Had to look up who that was... I don't consider high-functioning autism to be "retardation" in most cases. Unless someone says they're "high-functioning" and they really aren't (you all know who I'm referring to). Honestly, it's hard to tell if someone will "contribute to society" or not. Most of the time, you can tell when they're young, but not always. 
I mean people like this: one time I was in the library, and this mentally handicapped older guy was making weird noises at random people, while a woman (his caretaker?) was practically holding him back like he was a dog on a leash. I couldn't help but feel bad for him. It's embarrassing him and anyone involved. =(


----------



## Tycho (Dec 14, 2011)

eversleep said:


> Not nice.  I'm not retarded.



OK, then what the fuck is your excuse?


----------



## eversleep (Dec 14, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Genocide of a group of people? Check.
> Rub it in your face atheism? Check.
> A little racism? Check.
> Being Pro-Choice but not advocating the "choice" part? Check.
> ...


Maybe you're right with the first two points, but the ebonics thing isn't racism. Ebonics is not a language, it is a "dialect" of English that features improper grammar. I can't stand it when a person speaks ebonics to me and I have to ask them to repeat themselves, and they yell "a sed iz mad brik out here son! y ya dont undastand me muh fuh!!??". I have no problem with anyone using ebonics to speak with friends and family, but if someone was using it in a job interview, or professional setting, they should get fired.

Also, my fucking God, all you do is talk about weed! I thought I knew some potheads, but damn, you take the cake. I hate potheads who are all "I LUV SMOKIN AND EVERYONE'S AGAINST ME BOO HOO!!!". You know how much hate I got for choosing NOT to smoke? These same people who complained they were getting harrassed were harrassing me. They threatened they'd kill me if I "called the cops on them"... like I'd really take the time to get them in trouble, when what they're doing doesn't harm me at all. -_- People never fail to amuse me, even negatively. Look, there can be drug tests that exclude marijuana, or they can legalize and ignore marijuana in the tests. Happy now!?





Commie Bat said:


> I believe in deporting all illegal immigrants; and installing a "you cross, you get shot" policy.
> 
> Also you should only be able to immigrate if you know at least ONE of the native languages.


YES to the language thing. I bet any Japanese people would agree with you, so they don't have to deal with uneducated weeaboos moving there. Lmao.





Punjab said:


> Bacon is _okay_. The fact that it's 90% greasy fat and 10% delicious red meat is pretty off-putting. Never had it super crispy + salty though, maybe that'll change my mind?
> 
> There is my extremely debatable offensive controversial 2 cents to this topic


Yes it will change your mind! Crispy is awesome. Cook it longer, burn more of the fat off. Some people like it greasy, fatty, and chewy. I don't. I paper towel all the grease off of it. It needs to snap and break when bent, or I won't eat it. It needs to be visibly less than half fat.


----------



## eversleep (Dec 14, 2011)

Tycho said:


> OK, then what the fuck is your excuse?


Excuse for what?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 14, 2011)

eversleep said:


> Excuse for what?


Doubleposting, ya feckin' tad :V


----------



## Namba (Dec 15, 2011)

eversleep said:


> Excuse for what?


I believe the edit button is there for a reason, bro.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 15, 2011)

eversleep said:


> Excuse for what?



You said that retards should die.

You then said you are a retard.

What is your excuse for living?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 15, 2011)

Luti Kriss said:


> I believe _Idiocracy_ is a more likely outcome.


Nah, Idiocracy was a fun movie, but based on a false premise. Historically speaking, less educated people tend to be poorer, either because their lack of education has made them poor or their poorness has made education unavailable to them. This is important, because poor people tend to have more children than average, basically as a survival tool. So, uneducated people have basically always had more kids than more educated people. Yet, the educated people have more or less always stayed in some level of power. 

As it is, there is hope! Greater availability of education and greater class mobility have led to such sharp generational increases in IQ that there's actually a term for it. (Not to mention the effects of better nutrition and easier access to technology.)

(Yes, IQ only measures a particular kind of intelligence, but at least it's a measure increase in _some_ kind of intelligence; I think it's fair to assume that there are increases in other kinds as well. Also, education is not the same as intelligence, but good education can certainly bump a person up a few notches, and poor/no education can certainly bump them down. The brain has to be exercised to reach its full potential--most of the menial labor jobs available to lower classes will not provide an ideal sort of exercise.) 


Anyway I should probably actually state an appalling belief if I'm going to hang around on this thread. 


Barring medical issues, I don't think an adult person should eat meat if they aren't able to psychologically handle killing an animal themselves, or at least seeing one killed in front of them. By that I mean actually doing/seeing it, not just speculating or watching a youtube video. (I know it's a huge element of our culture to hide from that part, though, so I generally don't get judgmental on the subject.)


----------



## Onnes (Dec 15, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Barring medical issues, I don't think an adult person should eat meat if they aren't able to psychologically handle killing an animal themselves, or at least seeing one killed in front of them. By that I mean actually doing/seeing it, not just speculating or watching a youtube video. (I know it's a huge element of our culture to hide from that part, though, so I generally don't get judgmental on the subject.)



I think you underestimate what man will do for bacon.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 15, 2011)

Onnes said:


> I think you underestimate what man will do for bacon.


I'm actually also of the belief that most people probably could get used to it if they did it a few times. I mean, I'm a super hippie who picks worms out of puddles and cries when I find drowned mice in my sheeps' water buckets, and I got used to it. We've all got a predator inside. So I guess it's kind of moot. In general I feel that most people are too disconnected from what it really means to take a life, though. I thought I understood . . . but I didn't, not until I saw the animal alive and happy and thriving in one hour, and hanging skinned from our tree in the next. No amount of musing on the subject or watching youtube videos can really provide such comprehension. 

When I say these things, I am sometimes told by someone that they just don't want to think about the living thing. It has always struck me as terribly disrespectful, and . . . irresponsible? It's late, I'm not sure how to explain exactly. But it's something our culture has taught us, that meat comes from the store and don't think about it any more than that, so it's sort of unfair to judge a person on it even as strongly as I feel about it.


----------



## Tao (Dec 15, 2011)

I may be nice to everyone but when I actually stop and think, people disgust me. There's my contribution. ^^


----------



## Shred Uhh Sore Us (Dec 15, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Genocide of a group of people? Check.
> Rub it in your face atheism? Check.
> A little racism? Check.
> Being Pro-Choice but not advocating the "choice" part? Check.
> ...




What can I say? Hitler had the right idea, but went after the wrong group of people. I would like to point out a few flaws in your assumptions of my views though.

1.) I'm not Atheist, I'm Agnostic. Believing that your idea of a god or gods is correct and everyone who doesn't believe what you believe is wrong(which is the basis of virtually all religions) is pure arrogance. Nobody knows the truth in the living world, and nobody ever will.

2.) Ebonics doesn't refer to black people. You can be white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Arabic, or just about any other race and still be a lazy hood rat piece of shit. No racism here.

3.) Pro-choice is about choice, there are just some people who don't deserve that choice. A life never lived isn't the same as a life lost in my opinion. Like I said, I'm a socialist. I'm "evil"

Look up the word "misanthrope". I've given up on humanity long ago.





eversleep said:


> Marry me. <3
> I actually would ONLY consider veganism (and have, before) because of health benefits. Less animal products = less fat, less cholesterol, etc. But if the meat is from an animal that wasn't abused, I don't see a problem with it. Also I thought I'd get thinner if I went vegan. >.> Lol. But vegan shit tastes nasty.



xD Nice to see that somebody shares similar views to me. Though I think you may be moving things along a little too quickly. I mean, we just met are you sure about this


----------



## Bliss (Dec 15, 2011)

Shred Uhh Sore Us said:


> Look up the word "misanthrope". I've given up on humanity long ago.


Pull yourself together, bitch.



> xD Nice to see that somebody shares similar views to me. Though I think you may be moving things along a little too quickly. I mean, we just met are you sure about this


I'm drinking soya milk right now.


----------



## Shred Uhh Sore Us (Dec 15, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Pull yourself together, bitch.
> 
> I'm drinking soya milk right now.



....ok?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 15, 2011)

Shred Uhh Sore Us said:


> What can I say? Hitler had the right idea, but went after the wrong group of people. I would like to point out a few flaws in your assumptions of my views though.


What group of people would have been the "right" group of people?


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 15, 2011)

I love all kinds of meat and can handle killing the beasts myself, I am just too lazy to do so. Blame the butcher's shop. 

I believe that children, before getting a pet, should know that some day the pet will die and just what that entails. I don't care how old they are.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 15, 2011)

-I believe society is concerned too much with paying homage to the past, to the extent that efforts to improve the present state of affairs are hindered.
-'Sapience' as an absolute is a totally arbitrary term grounded more in religion and ancient philosophy, and thus of little to no factual merit.
-Transhumanism is batshit insane, and seems to show a great amount of dangerous contempt for the 'natural'.
-Any legal document over 50 years old almost definitely needs an overhaul.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 15, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> -Any legal document over 50 years old almost definitely needs an overhaul.


Amen to this. Also, if a person insists on citing a older document, they had _better fucking read it_. 

I'll never forget the time someone told me that the establishment clause doesn't count because it's "only" in the US Bill of Rights, not the original US Constitution. That is technically sort of halfway true, I guess; the Bill of Rights was tacked on about 10-20 years after the original US Constitution came to be. However, if we're going to toss the establishment clause because it's "only" in the Bill of Rights, then we might as well toss the rest of the First Amendment (which contains such frivolities as that newfangled "freedom of speech and religion"); not to mention the rest of the protections offered by the Bill of Rights that aren't really mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. Also this person was constantly citing the Second Amendment in other discussions. Pro-Second Amendment but anti-First Amendment? Yikes! Some people, I tell ya. 

Also lololol. (Relevant bit at 4:17 and really gets good at 4:59 but the whole thing's just priceless.)


----------



## Digitalpotato (Dec 15, 2011)

I'm refusing to talk to politics because I know *damn well* that when someone has a differing opinion over something like politics, you'll start hating them or viewing them as "stupid" for not viewing things from your point of view. Erego if you're seeking me out and talking politics, then I'll just warn you if you start hating someone or feel insulted by conflicting beliefs, then it's your fault. You chose to introduce controversial topics, now *DEAL WITH IT*!! 

Also, if you're going to crack down on me for "repeating things I've already said", then by all means I should have the right to do the same to you.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 15, 2011)

Digitalpotato said:


> I'm refusing to talk to politics because I know *damn well* that when someone has a differing opinion over something like politics, you'll start hating them or viewing them as "stupid" for not viewing things from your point of view.


You don't have to. When my boyfriend and I met, he was hella libertarian and I was significantly more of a bleeding heart liberal than I am now. (We also had a Christian-atheist divide.) We became very fast friends and years later we're in a loving relationship, although the experience brought us both a lot closer to center.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Dec 15, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> You don't have to. When my boyfriend and I met, he was hella libertarian and I was significantly more of a bleeding heart liberal than I am now. (We also had a Christian-atheist divide.) We became very fast friends and years later we're in a loving relationship, although the experience brought us both a lot closer to center.



Yep, isn't it amazing how two completely different people can love each other when you simply understand that there are some things you shouldn't discuss? :B


----------



## Attaman (Dec 15, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> -I believe society is concerned too much with paying homage to the past, to the extent that efforts to improve the present state of affairs are hindered.


Agreed and disagree, to degrees. To a degree, homage _must_ be paid to the past, but the amount given in some regards is absurd.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> -'Sapience' as an absolute is a totally arbitrary term grounded more in religion and ancient philosophy, and thus of little to no factual merit.


 Since I have a hunch this is related to a thread you made in R&R earlier, didn't you also claim that Animals should be treated as (at least) moral equals to humans, whereas at the same time say they can't be judged on the same moral level / system as humans? I mention the R&R as I have a strong feeling that the argument about Sapience is related to the same topic, and if not my mistake / apologies.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> -Transhumanism is batshit insane, and seems to show a great amount of dangerous contempt for the 'natural'.


 I am disappointed in FAF's lack of WTF smileys. As such, I'll need to make due with this. Mostly because of the leap from "Sapience has no factual merit" to "Transhumanism is batshit insane with a hard-on of nature rape". Maybe if you specified certain brands of Transhumanism, or specific complaints, but all you said is "Transhumanism evil evil anti-green".


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 15, 2011)

Digitalpotato said:


> Yep, isn't it amazing how two completely different people can love each other when you simply understand that there are some things you shouldn't discuss? :B


Nah, we talked politics/religion all the time (well, at least once a week or something), it was actually a major bonding point for us. Hence the getting closer to center thing, we beat the hell out of each others' arguments. 

Although part of it just came from us being really curious about what made other people tick. While we have had real arguments that have gotten very ugly, in those early months it was most just asking a question, getting an answer, and letting drop. There was legit debate and there still is legit debate, but the initial push was mostly just to learn about each other. It was a pretty eye-opening experience.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 15, 2011)

Attaman said:


> Since I have a hunch this is related to a thread you made in R&R earlier, didn't you also claim that Animals should be treated as (at least) moral equals to humans, whereas at the same time say they can't be judged on the same moral level / system as humans? I mention the R&R as I have a strong feeling that the argument about Sapience is related to the same topic, and if not my mistake / apologies.


I did not make such a claim. I did point out an error in the question 'don't rats eat their own young?' in the thread mentioned. The poster's argument implied that, while rats are not to be afforded the same status as humans, they should be held to the same behavioral standards, despite existing outside of human society.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 15, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> You don't have to. When my boyfriend and I met, he was hella libertarian and I was significantly more of a bleeding heart liberal than I am now. (We also had a Christian-atheist divide.) We became very fast friends and years later we're in a loving relationship, although the experience brought us both a lot closer to center.



Yeah but the atheist-christian divide would kinda be hard if you guys wanted to get married. As for me I believe a civil union would be better in these kinda siutations.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 15, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> Yeah but the atheist-christian divide would kinda be hard if you guys wanted to get married. As for me I believe a civil union would be better in these kinda siutations.


Well, we're gay anyway, so.

He's also not technically Christian; I just call him that for simplicity's sake, since he appears to be Christian by most outside observers. (Or did appear to be Christian. Like I said, we both changed a lot.) He didn't believe in picking-and-choosing verses of the Bible to follow, and could never reconcile being Christian with being gay, so. (There are gay Christians out there, of course, but he just couldn't go for it.) I used to call him not a Christian, but a Christianity _geek_--he doesn't follow it so much as study it and love it such to defend it every time I got my angry atheism on. He was a pretty odd cookie. Like I said though, we've both changed a fair bit since then. Still, the bulk of our bonding happened when we were near-total opposites. The things I learned from him . . .

This is getting way ahead of ourselves, but if thing continue as they've been going we likely will try to marry eventually. It would be more for the legal/social purposes, though, since neither of us is legit religious.  It would probably be held at a public park or something.


Naturally Will has some kind of sixth sense about when I'm talking about him on FAF and has this to say on the subject:

"Actually it was the feeling of being unafraid to discuss any  opinions with one another that led to our attraction. I don't believe  it's entirely the fault of people having different beliefs that causes  tension: it's the bringing together of people who are mentally violent  enough to consider another human inferior simply because, through one  way or another, he has come to believe something. I've come to thinking that people, and their beliefs, are fairly  coincidental and although they're definitely to a fault if they refuse  to answer any checking arguments, that it is not worth hating for. Damn  do I sound like a Christian ass hippy."


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 15, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Well, we're gay anyway, so.
> 
> He's also not technically Christian; I just call him that for simplicity's sake, since he appears to be Christian by most outside observers. (Or did appear to be Christian. Like I said, we both changed a lot.) He didn't believe in picking-and-choosing verses of the Bible to follow, and could never reconcile being Christian with being gay, so. (There are gay Christians out there, of course, but he just couldn't go for it.) I used to call him not a Christian, but a Christianity _geek_--he doesn't follow it so much as study it and love it such to defend it every time I got my angry atheism on. He was a pretty odd cookie. Like I said though, we've both changed a fair bit since then. Still, the bulk of our bonding happened when we were near-total opposites. The things I learned from him . . .
> 
> ...



This is going off of what you said.

Also I have had this belief for awhile and when I talk to a christian about gay marriage I usually use this logic. If 2 gay people get married they wont be in your "Heaven" anyway so why should it matter if they want to get married?

I believe that people should able to marry regardless if they are gay, straight, or Bi.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 15, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I'm drinking soya milk right now.



there is no such thing as soy milk because there is no soy titty


NOTE: I was trying to remember where I first heard this, and looked it up

Lewis Black

who is awesome


----------



## Namba (Dec 15, 2011)

Tycho said:


> there is no such thing as soy milk because there is no soy titty


Oh! That reminds me of this one kid at the school my dad taught! He only ate and drank soy products for the most part, and as a resultfrom all the estrogen he grew a boob! Not two, just one.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 15, 2011)

Tycho said:


> there is no such thing as soy milk because there is no soy titty


Boca should really get on that.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 15, 2011)

On the subject of gay marriage, I believe that gays are NOT going to be damned for all of eternity


----------



## Namba (Dec 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> On the subject of gay marriage, I believe that gays are NOT going to be damned for all of eternity


Au contraire, the belief they _are_ damned is what's appalling. It fucking sickens me when I hear that.


----------



## eversleep (Dec 15, 2011)

Luti Kriss said:


> Oh! That reminds me of this one kid at the school my dad taught! He only ate and drank soy products for the most part, and as a resultfrom all the estrogen he grew a boob! Not two, just one.


Wait... wut?  Why does soy have estrogen in it? I only drank soy milk a few times, but after reading that... never again.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 15, 2011)

eversleep said:


> Wait... wut?  Why does soy have estrogen in it? I only drank soy milk a few times, but after reading that... never again.




Mameshiba~!: "Hallo! Did you know? 2 glasses of soy milk a day for a month contains enough estrogen to change a woman's menstrual cycle?"


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 15, 2011)

I have never drunk soy milk and from based on what I hear I will never ever *ever *drink soy milk!!


----------



## zachery980 (Dec 15, 2011)

The world is flat, every thing in minecraft is round and world piece was made by a cookie.


----------



## Bliss (Dec 16, 2011)

Tycho said:


> there is no such thing as soy milk because there is no soy titty


And black people are not really black. Get over it. :V


----------



## Shred Uhh Sore Us (Dec 18, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> What group of people would have been the "right" group of people?



Anybody who is unable or unwilling to work and contribute to society.


Also, here's another belief of mine:

I believe that people who work shitty minimum wage jobs at fast food restaurants(provided that they actually do their job right and not half ass it because they're lazy, worthless pieces of shit) contribute more to society than famous celebrities/athletes that make disgusting amounts of money for entertaining the masses(with the exception of the ones who donate the majority of their salary to good causes that work to better the world and humanity...wait, do those even exist?).

If you make millions of dollars a year and don't feel compelled to use it to help those less fortunate, you don't deserve to live. Gross income =/= net worth. If that doesn't make sense to you, you also don't deserve to live.


----------



## TechnoGypsy (Dec 18, 2011)

Soy milk and soy ice cream have been rare luxuries for me. Delicious stuff.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 18, 2011)

Given that it actually takes relatively little to sustain a human life, I believe that for an internet misanthrope to declare entire sets of people as being undeserving to live is to be a monstrous, inhuman son of a bitch that must never hold any sort of power.

But they still deserve to live.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 18, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Given that it actually takes relatively little to sustain a human life, I believe that for an internet misanthrope to declare entire sets of people as being undeserving to live is to be a monstrous, inhuman son of a bitch that must never hold any sort of power.
> 
> But they still deserve to live.



Fuck no. Gas the French.


----------



## Namba (Dec 18, 2011)

Hey, what's the most common phrase in France?

...give up? So did they... countless times.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 18, 2011)

I believe that the US Postal Service is a valuable institution and should be largely funded by tax dollars. The obvious corollary of this is that cutting tens of thousands of postal service jobs during a recession to cover revenue losses is goddamn crazy.


----------



## Bliss (Dec 18, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Fuck no. Gas the French.


Silence, subject.



Commie Bat said:


> I believe that everyone, from any ethnicity, religion and creed, along with sexuality; all have a niche and something to contribute to society.


Straight people never had nor did the thing matters most. :V


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 18, 2011)

I believe that there's such a thing as too much comfortable....


----------



## eversleep (Dec 18, 2011)

Shred Uhh Sore Us said:


> I believe that people who work shitty minimum wage jobs at fast food restaurants(provided that they actually do their job right and not half ass it because they're lazy, worthless pieces of shit) contribute more to society than famous celebrities/athletes that make disgusting amounts of money for entertaining the masses(with the exception of the ones who donate the majority of their salary to good causes that work to better the world and humanity...wait, do those even exist?).
> 
> If you make millions of dollars a year and don't feel compelled to use it to help those less fortunate, you don't deserve to live. Gross income =/= net worth. If that doesn't make sense to you, you also don't deserve to live.


THIS x1,000,000. I want to be a musician, but not that kind. I don't wanna be the next front-of-every-magazine celeb with a mansion and yacht. Give me enough money to live comfortable in a two-bedroom small cottage and I'm happy. Firefighters should make more money than athletes. Armed forces should make more than actors. That's how it should be.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 18, 2011)

I believe music is the best thing ever made.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 18, 2011)

Shred Uhh Sore Us said:


> Anybody who is unable or unwilling to work and contribute to society.


Hitler believed he targeted the same. In any event, the Nazis actually pursued the handicapped quite aggressively. I doubt I would have made it through Nazi Germany alive. (You know, barring that I also would have qualified for a red, pink, and _maybe_ a purple/black [on account of pacifism] triangle. I'm not sure that you could actually get multiple triangles unless you were Jewish, though, so it would depend on what they got me for first eh.) 

Riddle me this, though. Do you have a good friend, or a family member who you love? You probably do; let's say that they are willing and able to work. Or, were able. Imagine for me that they have been involved in a car accident, or some other such unpleasantry, and are injured such that they will never realistically be able to support themselves again. Perhaps it is physical, perhaps it is some level of brain damage, perhaps some combination. Whatever it is, they are now a "burden," the same as anyone who was born disabled. They are unhappy with the situation, as most people in such situations are, but still able to find joy in life and do not wish to die. They are still your loved one. Do you sit idly by when they are "exterminated," do you still celebrate this extermination? They're no less a "burden" than these other groups you would have killed.


----------



## Spatel (Dec 18, 2011)

'Anybody who is unable or unwilling to work and contribute to society' is a slippery slope that leads to everyone, eventually, getting gassed.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 18, 2011)

I believe that certain people don't understand the concept of this thread still.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 18, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I believe that certain people don't understand the concept of this thread still.


Discussionless threads belong in Forum Games, not here. Grae encouraged discourse on at least two occasions, only requesting that it remain civil. 

Unless you are speaking of something else, in which case, I apologize.


----------



## Ruby Dragon (Dec 19, 2011)

That school is fun.

The school bus can be comfortable.

Religion is a pile of bullshit fairy tales to substitute actual answers.


----------



## Azerane (Dec 20, 2011)

In some ways I believe natural disasters that cause loss of life to be a good thing. The world is far too populated already. It doesn't mean that I don't feel for those lives lost.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Dec 20, 2011)

Ruby Dragon said:


> That school is fun.


I am verily appalled.

I think pony porn is arousing. Goddammit...


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 21, 2011)

I think that V for Vendetta is the best movie ever.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Dec 21, 2011)

I believe in Gnostic Luciferianism. 

I believe life is not sacred. 

I believe most people should be sterilized.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 21, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Discussionless threads belong in Forum Games, not here. Grae encouraged discourse on at least two occasions, only requesting that it remain civil.
> 
> Unless you are speaking of something else, in which case, I apologize.



I'm pretty sure that this thread was made for controversial views. I've seen some state not-so controversial views.


----------



## thedogon11 (Dec 21, 2011)

That either smoking needs to be banned, or drugs carefully legalized.


----------



## Namba (Dec 21, 2011)

thedogon11 said:


> That either smoking needs to be banned, or drugs carefully legalized.


Why is marijuana not legal??? A little THC never hurt nobody


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 21, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I'm pretty sure that this thread was made for controversial views. I've seen some state not-so controversial views.



I believe that controversial views and discourse are often hand-in-hand. I don't mind general conversation and maybe a little debate... Like Ad Hoc stated though the only thing I ask is that it remain civil. 

Official thread Oxymoron is "Civil Discourse!"


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 22, 2011)

Serpion5 said:


> I believe most people should be sterilized.



I'm guessing by that you mean most people other than yourself. 

When someone comes forward in favor of eugenics and lists themselves amongst those it applies to, maybe I'll be slightly more impressed. 



Dragonfurry said:


> I think that V for Vendetta is the best movie ever.



This explains a lot.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Dec 22, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> I'm guessing by that you mean most people other than yourself.



Hell no. I have a defective immune system and another hereditary medical condition. If I ever want kids, I`ll adopt. That I assure you. 



I believe I will strive for clarity in future. :v


----------



## NerdyMunk (Dec 22, 2011)

Sandals are not worn for every season of the year. Especially if you wearing socks with them. There are these funny inventions called shoes. I can't stand the sound of the sandal flap slapping against your oily disgusting skin, so please wear shoes.


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 22, 2011)

I believe that Christmas has lost its Christianity.

I can not wait for the age of Aquarius so that we can have a new world's leading religion. Too bad I won't get to see it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 22, 2011)

I believe that many of the problems in the world today can be blamed, in part, on (the original) Jews. Godwin's Army, have at me!


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Dec 22, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I believe that many of the problems in the world today can be blamed, in part, on (the original) Jews. Godwin's Army, have at me!



When you think about it.... hmmm.... screw it I am not going to be afraid of being yelled at...


Kit, you are correct.


----------



## Killonoid (Jan 23, 2012)

I believe that in order to achieve a balance between humans and the wild and to help conserve our resources....we have to "cull the human race" First the severely elderly and those in a vegetative state or coma, then infants that without EXTENSIVE surgery or care for the rest of their life would die and the severely mentally retarded. Follow this pattern as much as deemed nessesary or until only the healthy, fit, and able survive.

We as a species are selfish, populating this Earth as quickly as we please and willing to kill off anything that stands in our way. Is this theory REALLY that outlandish....animals in the wild reject the runt all the time. They don't get emotionally attached and they ask the question "Is it gonna be you or me?" or "Are you REALLY worth all that extra time and effort?". To them not EVERY life is worth saving. Allow natural selection to take it's coarse so we can live in a balance with the rest of the animal kingdom instead of destroying it.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 23, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> I believe that in order to achieve a balance between humans and the wild and to help conserve our resources....we have to "cull the human race" so only the healthy, fit, and able survive.


Posting in a necro thread, probably going to get my first infraction, but this is important to me. 

I take incredible offense to this. I'm physically unfit due to genetic disorder but have contributed and will continue to contribute plenty to society with my mind. I have every right to not be "culled." (Not that many people really don't anyway.) In any event, overpopulation is a myth in the First World. Most first world nations are actually having population decline once you factor out immigration.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 23, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> I believe that in order to achieve a balance between humans and the wild and to help conserve our resources....we have to "cull the human race" so only the healthy, fit, and able survive.



Also to add on this I think this would be only acceptable in a Nuclear Holocaust or Zombie Apocalypse.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 23, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> I believe that in order to achieve a balance between humans and the wild and to help conserve our resources....we have to "cull the human race" so only the healthy, fit, and able survive.
> *
> We as a species are selfish, populating this Earth as quickly as we please and willing to kill off anything that stands in our way.* Is this theory REALLY that outlandish....animals in the wild reject the runt all the time. They don't get emotionally attached and they ask the question "Is it gonna be you or me?" or "Are you REALLY worth all that extra time and effort?". To them not EVERY life is worth saving. Allow natural selection to take it's coarse so we can live in a balance with the rest of the animal kingdom instead of destroying it.



Bastardly humans. Always doing the exact same thing every other living organism that has ever lived has done. 

Bastards.


----------



## Killonoid (Jan 23, 2012)

Well there was a priority list but I cut it because it looked too long(edited a basic form back in). It wouldn't just be "If something is wrong, you're gone" thing. For example paraplegics are pretty far down the list because they can still do lots of things. The more you can offer society, the better your odds. We'd just need to abandon the idea that EVERYONE can better society. Not to mention that this solution would probably be WAY in the future, when overcrowding and resource exhaustion is *threatening our very existence*, then sacrifices must be made. Again I don't have the whole system yet, and tough decisions would need to be made....but it's something I'd be willing to do for the sake of human survival.


----------



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Jan 23, 2012)

- I believe that all natural disasters are for the greater good
- I respect most of the views of the National Socialist Ideology

but _*worst *_of all... I like dubstep


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 23, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> Well there was a priority list but I cut it because it looked too long(edited a basic form back in). It wouldn't just be "If something is wrong, you're gone" thing. For example paraplegics are pretty far down the list because they can still do lots of things. The more you can offer society, the better your odds. We'd just need to abandon the idea that EVERYONE can better society. Not to mention that this solution would probably be WAY in the future, when overcrowding and resource exhaustion is *threatening our very existence*, then sacrifices must be made. Again I don't have the whole system yet, and tough decisions would need to be made....but it's something I'd be willing to do for the sake of human survival.


Except that human overpopulation in the first world is a myth because most first world nations have neutral or negative population growth when you factor out immigration. Knocking out the "undesireables" is drops in the ocean. You'd have to start committing genocides on the poor of underdeveloped/undeveloped nations to actually get to the heart of the human overpopulation via violence and that's got all sort of trouble attached to it. (Especially since it means killing a lot people you consider "fit.")

The best way to tackle the overpopulation is to work on better education and infrastructure impoverished areas. Higher income = lower birth rates, and no one has to die.


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 23, 2012)

i believe there should be a limit on how many kids people can have


----------



## Killonoid (Jan 23, 2012)

not only that, but you should need to pass a competency test and maybe apply for a license


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 23, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> i believe there should be a limit on how many kids people can have



Following China's dictation aren't we? Plus get the fucking message : Overpopulation is a myth.


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 23, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Following China's dictation aren't we? Plus get the fucking message : Overpopulation is a myth.



implying there aren't people who pop out babies to get government money


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 23, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> implying there aren't people who pop out babies to get government money



If you are gonna bring up that shit do it in the proper thread. Let me link it to you.

http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/113815-Is-this-fair-(political-debate)


----------



## Killonoid (Jan 23, 2012)

I didn't say it was perfect, and while your idea of better education and infrastructure isn't bad and would be the ideal solution, I go back to my main point: Why spend all that time, money, effort, and resources on something that may just not be worth saving. It may be harsh, but that's how it's done in the wild; if you're too sick or wounded or old, they simply turn the other cheek. Many beleive that others should be helped at any costs, while I believe there is simply a limit to that cost.

Your point is made that my idea wouldn't really do that much, but rather than trying to help everyone we can up, so much that we become the weak and pathetic we took so much empathy on...simply let them fall.


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 23, 2012)

there is so much butt hurt in this thread over other people opinions


----------



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Jan 23, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> there is so much butt hurt in this thread over other people opinions



yes, i would normally expect to laugh at all of this on 4chan. But not here xD


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 23, 2012)

In The Nightside Eclipse said:


> yes, i would normally expect to laugh at all of this on 4chan. But not here xD



this place is sometimes called /b/ with animal avatars


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 23, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> I didn't say it was perfect, and while your idea of better education and infrastructure isn't bad and would be the ideal solution, I go back to my main point: Why spend all that time, money, effort, and resources on something that may just not be worth saving. It may be harsh, but that's how it's done in the wild; if you're too sick or wounded or old, they simply turn the other cheek. Many beleive that others should be helped at any costs, while I believe there is simply a limit to that cost.
> 
> Your point is made that my idea wouldn't really do that much, but rather than trying to help everyone we can up, so much that we become the weak and pathetic we took so much empathy on...simply let them fall.


Doesn't change that it's a drop in the ocean to kill our disabled, or let them die, or whatever. If you actually care about overpopulation, the only way to deal with it is to address the poor of poor nations. If you "turn the other cheek" on them, they'll continue to overpopulate unless they manage to fix their economies. (May or may not happen, do you want to wait and see?) If you're concerned about overpopulation, you have to take some kind of action in those areas. You can either commit a genocide or you can try to help them get their economy to a place where they don't need to keep having so many kids.


----------



## Killonoid (Jan 23, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Doesn't change that it's a drop in the ocean to kill our disabled, or let them die, or whatever. If you actually care about overpopulation, the only way to deal with it is to address the poor of poor nations. If you "turn the other cheek" on them, they'll continue to overpopulate unless they manage to fix their economies. (May or may not happen, do you want to wait and see?) If you're concerned about overpopulation, you have to take some kind of action in those areas. You can either commit a genocide or you can try to help them get their economy to a place where they don't need to keep having so many kids.



Now they're starting to sound like animals that haven't been fixed. Well....which solution is easier? (Keep in mind the world at this point is overcrowded and close to exhausted of resources)


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 23, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Following China's dictation aren't we? Plus get the fucking message : Overpopulation is a myth.


If overpopulation is a myth when talking about this species, then it is _surely_ a myth for all other species deemed to be overpopulated by those with itchy trigger fingers.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 23, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> I believe I'm awesome.... :V
> 
> ...and that certain endangered species' lives are more important, than that of a human. Take the Amur leopard for example.


A single human is insignificant compared to _many_ things. In the time it takes me to type this, dozens have died, and most of them won't be remembered outside of their muddy little villages.

Uhh...a belief..OH!
I believe that it's ridiculous to ignore the treatment of 'animals' because they are less intelligent than 'us'. Where does intelligence factor into whether or not we are kind to our own?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 23, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> Now they're starting to sound like animals that haven't been fixed. Well....which solution is easier? (Keep in mind the world at this point is overcrowded and close to exhausted of resources)


Personally I'm all for helping, because that's the kind of guy I am. It probably is easier, because it wouldn't mean war. (Do realize that most of these people do have a government that put up some kind resistance on their account. Not to mention the people themselves; guerrilla warfare is some nasty shit. Unless you want to just nuke the place, but that's not very environmentally friendly not to mention the global political backlash.) Although we'd have to be smarter about how we actually do the aid. If genocide were an easier option, though, would you go for it? 



Commie Bat said:


> I believe I'm awesome....  :V


Well, you were recently confirmed as some kind of descendent of Beorn. Seems reasonable.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 23, 2012)

I believe that you cant trust anyone.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 23, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> A single human is insignificant compared to _many_ things. In the time it takes me to type this, dozens have died, and most of them won't be remembered outside of their muddy little villages.


Woah woah woah I missed this

You think that an organism's significance is based on how many people remember it? You're all into animal rights, aren't you? Animals die all the time, entire species even, and no one notices. Hell we'll probably lose a species in the next few hours and you and I will never notice because all it was was a little known newt that only lived in a single pond on a mountain that industry blew up to mine for metals to make that computer you're using, or something like that. Is it less unfortunate because we don't actually know about it? 

(Amphibians really do sometimes have tiny ranges like that, AFAIK we recently lost a species of toad to a similar situation.)


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 23, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Woah woah woah I missed this
> 
> You think that an organism's significance is based on how many people remember it? You're all into animal rights, aren't you? Animals die all the time, entire species even, and no one notices. Hell we'll probably lose a species in the next few hours and you and I will never notice because all it was was a little known newt that only lived in a single pond on a mountain that industry blew up to mine for metals to make that computer you're using, or something like that. Is it less unfortunate because we don't actually know about it?
> 
> (Amphibians really do sometimes have tiny ranges like that, AFAIK we recently lost a species of toad to a similar situation.)


This is not the kind of response I was expecting. A pleasant surprise actually.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 23, 2012)

Oh, I've got plenty but only two things are on my mind right now.

First off, I'm am anarchist. I guess that speaks for itself.

Second, I find a lot of clean furry art to be incredibly boring and lacking in content. I'm less militant about it now than I used to be because I kinda realize the same can be applied for a lot of porn. I'm a moron.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 23, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> If you are gonna bring up that shit do it in the proper thread. Let me link it to you.
> 
> http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/113815-Is-this-fair-(political-debate)



wowowowow dragonfurry's getting sassy


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 23, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> This is not the kind of response I was expecting. A pleasant surprise actually.


Well there's a dodgy answer if I've ever seen one. You're welcome though.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 23, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> If you are gonna bring up that shit do it in the proper thread. Let me link it to you.
> 
> http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/113815-Is-this-fair-(political-debate)



This is still the proper thread to bring this up as it is a controversial view.

Also UK gov't =/= American gov't


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 23, 2012)

Aleu said:


> This is still the proper thread to bring this up as it is a controversial view.
> 
> Also UK gov't =/= American gov't



I wasnt equating UK gov with American gov. I was simply trying to find a better spot for him to post that kinda stuff.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 23, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> I wasnt equating UK gov with American gov. I was simply trying to find a better spot for him to post that kinda stuff.



I'm not exactly sure if you get the point of this thread. As I stated in the SAME post you quoted me.
"This is still the proper thread to bring this up as it is a controversial view."


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 23, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> not only that, but you should need to pass a competency test and maybe apply for a license



"The pro-eugenics party has decided that you are unfit for children. This has absolutely nothing to do with your history of voting against our party. Problem?"


EDIT: It always astounds me how much people seem to forget the historical precedent for what happens if you try to remove "undesirables" from your society, not to mention the outcome for those involved.


----------



## Bliss (Jan 23, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> You're all into animals, aren't you?


I love this forum late at night.


----------



## Corto (Jan 23, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> I didn't say it was perfect, and while your idea of better education and infrastructure isn't bad and would be the ideal solution, I go back to my main point: Why spend all that time, money, effort, and resources on something that may just not be worth saving. It may be harsh, but that's how it's done in the wild; if you're too sick or wounded or old, they simply turn the other cheek. Many beleive that others should be helped at any costs, while I believe there is simply a limit to that cost.


So first you talk about how humans are selfish and bad and then you take one of our redeeming qualities (probably the biggest one, too), be it conscience or altruism or goodness or having a soul or however you call it, and then fuck it up the ass and suggest we get to committing genocide because it's cheaper than helping those less fortunate. 
I know as a mod I'm supposed to be impartial and all that but I'm pretty sure that qualifies you as a terrible person.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 23, 2012)

^Not the soul shit again^


Unsilenced said:


> "EDIT: It always astounds me how much people seem to forget the historical precedent for what happens if you try to remove "undesirables" from your society, not to mention the outcome for those involved.


Godwin AGAIN? One more reason to hate the Nazis; they ruined forever _any _type of quality control within our own species. I can see what the poster it was invoked on _might _have been trying to say, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 23, 2012)

Damned Nazis. 

Ruined the practice of genocide for the rest of us.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 23, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> Damned Nazis.
> 
> Ruined the practice of genocide for the rest of us.


Parental licensing is not genocide. You can't kill what was never conceived.


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 23, 2012)

i believe in removing my seeds when i finished downloading a torrent


----------



## Bliss (Jan 23, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Godwin AGAIN? One more reason to hate the Nazis; they ruined forever _any _type of quality control within our own species. I can see what the poster it was invoked on _might _have been trying to say, but I'm not sure.


So... what is your quality?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 23, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Parental licensing is not genocide. You can't kill what was never conceived.


It is when you use it to wipe out entire groups of people, would be well within the abilities of any government which made use of such a system of licensing. That was Unsilenced's point in the first place, that it would almost certainly be misused.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 23, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> So... what is your quality?


If it makes you feel any better, I'm not going to reproduce either way.

I believe "Neo-Nazis" are some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Hogmonglers could never be fit to rule over others.

I also believe that the 'rightness' of the beliefs and actions of those long dead should be judged from a modern perspective.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 24, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I also believe that the 'rightness' of the beliefs and actions of those long dead should be judged from a modern perspective.


I'd like to hear a "modern perspective" which puts a positive spin on genocide. Yes, "all of you undesirables can't breed / need to be sterilized" is genocide, if _slightly_ more dignified than taking them behind the shed.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Jan 24, 2012)

I think the earth could use some mass human death. In response to the past couple of posts. 

We have way too many of us and no more natural selection. A lot of us are going to have to die. We might as well either pick out and destroy those who are weaker than others (and I would be in that group), or sterilize them all to prevent more being made.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 24, 2012)

Moonfall The Fox said:


> I think the earth could use some mass human death. In response to the past couple of posts.
> 
> We have way too many of us and no more natural selection. A lot of us are going to have to die. We might as well either pick out and destroy those who are weaker than others (and I would be in that group), or sterilize them all to prevent more being made.


Destroying the disabled/"unfit" of the first world would be drops in the ocean. First world populations are all plateaued or in decline when you factor out immigration anyway, they don't need any additional regulation. You going to gas the slums of India? 

In any event, if you really think it's for the best that you die, then step up and step out.


----------



## Wreth (Jan 24, 2012)

The best way to prevent overpopulation is help other nations become more advanced.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 24, 2012)

Eugenics is what a bug-light is to faux intellectualism.


----------



## Corto (Jan 24, 2012)

To everybody suggesting we massacre less developed countries (which I guess would include me, being form Southamerica and all), please go and sterilize yourselves tomorrow. Now I don't mean this as an insult, but if you really believe that overpopulation is such a serious problem that we should start massive genocides, the least you can do to be consequent with your belief (instead of, you know, a sick fuck trying to rationalize the massacre of everyone different from you) is to save the world from the burden of your progeny. I mean, since it's an hypothetical baby that may not even exist ever, it surely is better than going out and killing actual living humans, right? Or are you, little snowflakes, _so special _that your imaginary baby has more rights than already existing people? 

Also, here's a fun question: Say you do have a son, eventually (or hell maybe you already have one, I dunno). If your son was mentally challenged, or born without control of his legs, or born deaf, would you kill him? Just take your newborn baby, inject him with poison, and leave him to die? Or do we apply this extreme forced darwinism only to those with a different skin color form yours?


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Jan 24, 2012)

I believe Mankind has every right to play God.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2012)

Serpion5 said:


> I believe Mankind has every right to play God.


That's not simply 'appalling', it's _dangerous _in certain situations.
*************************************************
(Unrelated)
I believe live animal sacrifice is unjustly considered a 'special snowflake' because of its religious ties, and should be punished the same as any other abuse. Compassion is more important than the indulgence of fantasy.


----------



## Bliss (Jan 24, 2012)

Corto said:


> (which I guess would include me, being form Southamerica and all)


I believe the Falkland Islands belong to the United Kingdom. :3c


----------



## AnalogDawn (Jan 24, 2012)

The strong sampling bias that this forum generates makes this thread comedic rather than sad.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2012)

AnalogDawn said:


> The strong sampling bias that this forum generates makes this thread comedic rather than sad.


In an ironic sort of way? Maybe we're not so different from 'outsiders' after all :V


----------



## Gavrill (Jan 24, 2012)

I believe that Let's Plays are more fun than the actual game in many cases granted the LPer is decent


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 24, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> That's not simply 'appalling', it's _dangerous _in certain situations.


Well, I hope you apply that to your weird eugenics nonsense. 



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> *************************************************
> (Unrelated)
> I believe live animal sacrifice is unjustly considered a 'special snowflake' because of its religious ties, and should be punished the same as any other abuse. Compassion is more important than the indulgence of fantasy.


Uh, dude, not all animal sacrifice is even cruel. For example, when Muslims do Eid al-Adha, they use the same halal slaughter that they always use for slaughter, which is very humane if performed correctly. Nor is it necessarily wasteful, as you're going to say next. Again going back to the Muslims: Animals slaughtered for Eid are divided into thirds afterward. A third goes to the poor, a third goes to their friends and extended family, and a third goes to the sacrificer. I mean, for that first one, it actually serves a pretty significant purpose. 

It has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and as far as I know it's not a legitimate loophole for what would be legally defined as animal cruelty. If it's illegal, it's illegal; religion only gets a person so much wiggle room. 



Gavrill said:


> I believe that Let's Plays are more fun than the actual game in many cases granted the LPer is decent


The original Nuzlocke Challenge comic was way funner than any actual Nuzlocke challenge.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 24, 2012)

I believe in a balance between Chaos and Order, and Good and Evil. But on the good and evil part they are so abstract there is not really a good definition of good and evil.


----------



## Gavrill (Jan 24, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> The original Nuzlocke Challenge comic was way funner than any actual Nuzlocke challenge.


As a rule I don't watch/follow Pokemon LPs unless they're exploiting the hell outta glitches :v


----------



## Rhetorica (Jan 24, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Godwin AGAIN? One more reason to hate the Nazis; they ruined forever _any _type of quality control within our own species.



Bad news, Star Fox: Godwin is only invoked when the comparison is spurious (e.g. Hitler was a vegetarian.) When you're _actually talking about genocide_, it's considered admissible.

Also, the US had a eugenics program until the 1970s.

Also also, this is a really sad thread that is making me wonder if I really want to participate on FAF.


----------



## AnalogDawn (Jan 24, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> In an ironic sort of way? Maybe we're not so different from 'outsiders' after all :V



Don't you find it supremely ironic that at least a subset of the furry fandom, which always cries about victimization and the need for tolerance, could harbor such closed minded opinions?  Kettle, pot.  Pot, kettle.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 24, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> Because they have differing opinions than your own?  That seems kind of illogical and sad to me; you could just ignore this thread after all.


Some opinions are pretty repellent dude. Would you hang out with someone who thought it was perfectly okay to, I don't know, set fire to puppies or something? (Maybe not doing it themselves, but they wouldn't lift a finger to stop someone else, because they just didn't think it was wrong.) I mean on this thread we have posters advocating for the destruction of people, sometimes huge groups of them, for kind of a stupid reason. (Overpopulation, but that's better handled with economic and educational reform.) That's pretty repellent. I'm pretty cool with people who are different from me, I mean hell my boyfriend was libertarian when I met him and I'm a liberal and we worked out, but there's a line somewhere. I'll admit I got acutely less comfortable with this community after reading some of the things on this thread. 

They could just leave the thread, but what's been read can't be unread. Although, why anyone would come to this thread not expecting to be, you know, appalled, is a little beyond me.


----------



## Killonoid (Jan 24, 2012)

Corto said:


> Also, here's a fun question: Say you do have a son, eventually (or hell maybe you already have one, I dunno). If your son was mentally challenged, or born without control of his legs, or born deaf, would you kill him? Just take your newborn baby, inject him with poison, and leave him to die? Or do we apply this extreme forced darwinism only to those with a different skin color form yours?



Well it depends on how mentally retarded but other than that no, only because those aren't severe enough defects. There are paraplegics and deaf people that fit totally fine in society. It's the parasitic ones; by definition, ones that can _only_ take from their host while giving _nothing_ back.....those are the ones that would need to be dealt with (humanely).


----------



## Onnes (Jan 24, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> ... I'll admit I got acutely less comfortable with this community after reading some of the things on this thread.



That's interesting, I don't think I've seen anything in here that really surprised me, given some rudimentary assumptions about demographics and common views. Perhaps the only unusual thing I've ever really noticed here has been the bestiality support, which I suppose exists for obvious reasons. I must just be highly cynical.


----------



## Rhetorica (Jan 24, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> Because they have differing opinions than your own?  That seems kind of illogical and sad to me; you could just ignore this thread after all.
> 
> Not really.
> 
> Can you enlighten me why you find it so?



What's remarkable about this thread is that it proves that a very large number of people posting on the FurAffinity Forums are so interested in garnering attention (even negative attention) that they're willing to compromise their chances of carrying on normal conversations with people. There are a lot of people who've posted here that I, and no doubt others, will never see in the same light again. Exactly what they said or what viewpoints they took up doesn't matterâ€”the fact that they felt the need to put themselves on display (and take credit for their words here, instead of being anonymous on 4chan or something) is the problem. Generally these opinions should be kept to oneself; doing so makes discourse smoother and helps to build community. The ability to beat back the tribal urge to cut out other groups is a major part of why we don't live in little isolated tribes today.

It's a curious function of this particular community that it is so eager to share such dirty laundry; most other communities would not be so forward. It does not inspire confidence.


----------



## Bliss (Jan 24, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Perhaps the only unusual thing I've ever really noticed here has been the bestiality support...


You are very welcome. :V


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Jan 24, 2012)

Rhetorica said:


> What's remarkable about this thread is that it proves that a very large number of people posting on the FurAffinity Forums are so interested in garnering attention (even negative attention) that they're willing to compromise their chances of carrying on normal conversations with people. There are a lot of people who've posted here that I, and no doubt others, will never see in the same light again. Exactly what they said or what viewpoints they took up doesn't matterâ€”the fact that they felt the need to put themselves on display (and take credit for their words here, instead of being anonymous on 4chan or something) is the problem. Generally these opinions should be kept to oneself; doing so makes discourse smoother and helps to build community. The ability to beat back the tribal urge to cut out other groups is a major part of why we don't live in little isolated tribes today.
> 
> It's a curious function of this particular community that it is so eager to share such dirty laundry; most other communities would not be so forward. It does not inspire confidence.


tell me about your dirty laundry


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm not all that surprised that people are being so open here, something about this place seems to leak all your inhibitions out, hence the artwork. That whole attitude of just going with it, doing what we want and not caring what others think of us, it works in here as well as outside.

For myself, polytheism. not that unusual now, but I'm expecting a few complaints even so.
Also, I believe that I did not have to be here, I chose to enjoy this stuff, it was not some thing about myself that I discovered, I actually decided that this was something I wanted to be a part of, and now am.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> Also, I believe that I did not have to be here, I chose to enjoy this stuff, it was not some thing about myself that I discovered, I actually decided that this was something I wanted to be a part of, and now am.



How is that appalling at all? Surely you can do better than that!


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 24, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> Now puppy burning is yeah.....that's a wierd group of people, and of course I wouldn't be around them.  Nor people who advocate genocide or any pro-nazi attitude.  Then again, I'm not the best in voicing my opinions in English; it just comes out wierd.  While I find a lot of this disturbing, I've heard much worse, and since this is the internet it lets people voice their own opinions, easily without _consequences _per say.  Now reading the things said here, yeah I would agree and I'm sure i've unintentionally offended some people to.





Onnes said:


> That's interesting, I don't think I've seen anything in here that really surprised me, given some rudimentary assumptions about demographics and common views. Perhaps the only unusual thing I've ever really noticed here has been the bestiality support, which I suppose exists for obvious reasons. I must just be highly cynical.


Mm, I've heard it before too. Not often offline, except from a few unpleasant relatives, but more than often enough online. To tell you the truth, if you'd caught me when I was, oh, 15 or younger, I probably would have been nodding along with a lot of the stuff I'm railing against now. I suppose I'm just not the sort to get less bothered by something just because I've heard it before. Usually it's the opposite, since that's just an indication to me that more people hold the repellent opinion, which makes it more bothersome. Cynicism is not a natural thing to me, either, though. I do assume the best of most folks until they give me reason not to, so it is a bit of a slap in the face. I'm a fool for that, I suppose. 



Commie Bat said:


> I have a new invention just for this thread/or site as a whole;  "memory-wipe" use it to erase things you don't ever want to remember.   I'll make millions for selling it.  :V


Why are you holding out. >:V


----------



## Onnes (Jan 24, 2012)

Rhetorica said:


> What's remarkable about this thread is that it proves that a very large number of people posting on the FurAffinity Forums are so interested in garnering attention (even negative attention) that they're willing to compromise their chances of carrying on normal conversations with people. There are a lot of people who've posted here that I, and no doubt others, will never see in the same light again. Exactly what they said or what viewpoints they took up doesn't matterâ€”the fact that they felt the need to put themselves on display (and take credit for their words here, instead of being anonymous on 4chan or something) is the problem. Generally these opinions should be kept to oneself; doing so makes discourse smoother and helps to build community. The ability to beat back the tribal urge to cut out other groups is a major part of why we don't live in little isolated tribes today.
> 
> It's a curious function of this particular community that it is so eager to share such dirty laundry; most other communities would not be so forward. It does not inspire confidence.





Ad Hoc said:


> Mm, I've heard it before too. Not often offline, except from a few unpleasant relatives, but more than often enough online. To tell you the truth, if you'd caught me when I was, oh, 15 or younger, I probably would have been nodding along with a lot of the stuff I'm railing against now. I suppose I'm just not the sort to get less bothered by something just because I've heard it before. Usually it's the opposite, since that's just an indication to me that more people hold the repellent opinion, which makes it more bothersome. Cynicism is not a natural thing to me, either, though. I do assume the best of most folks until they give me reason not to, so it is a bit of a slap in the face. I'm a fool for that, I suppose.



I'd tend to reject the notion that it is better for such appalling viewpoints to remain unknown. Wanting people to keep their real views secret is an ignorance is bliss  kind of argument--it is convenient but carries definite disadvantages. If you truly think a given view is appalling then you probably also want to change it. Yet if it remains hidden you have no opportunity to engage in discourse and you may simply assume the opinion doesn't exist int he first place. 

The thing is, whatever views you happen to find appalling exist  independently of your knowledge of them. The people you deal with are  the same no matter what you know about their thoughts. Opinions don't  cease to be only because you are unaware of them. Given some experience  and observational attention, you probably also have a qualitative idea  of how common such opinions are in a given demographic even if you don't  know which individuals hold them. In this sense it shouldn't be  particularly surprising or unusual when an individual actually reveals  those opinions.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 24, 2012)

Onnes said:


> I'd tend to reject the notion that it is better for such appalling viewpoints to remain unknown. Wanting people to keep their real views secret is an ignorance is bliss  kind of argument--it is convenient but carries definite disadvantages. If you truly think a given view is appalling then you probably also want to change it. Yet if it remains hidden you have no opportunity to engage in discourse and you may simply assume the opinion doesn't exist int he first place.


Mm, hold up Beard Man, you've either had a quote failure or you're applying someone else' words to mine. I never said I wanted anyone silent. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as they say; you can't combat something if you don't know it's there. 



Onnes said:


> The thing is, whatever views you happen to find appalling exist   independently of your knowledge of them. The people you deal with are   the same no matter what you know about their thoughts. Opinions don't   cease to be only because you are unaware of them. Given some experience   and observational attention, you probably also have a qualitative idea   of how common such opinions are in a given demographic even if you  don't  know which individuals hold them. In this sense it shouldn't be   particularly surprising or unusual when an individual actually reveals   those opinions.


Alright, this is rational and sound. I'll just go about and remember day-to-day that, oh, 1:10 people that I'll encounter will have some idea in their head that it'd be for the best to forcibly sterilize or outright kill me, and I'm not going to let it bother me at all when it comes to light. That'll be a great way to live I'm sure. 

Nah, nah, I know what you're saying, I'm just mad. This shit's everywhere so don't get caught by surprise. That's probably good advice and I'll prolly listen to it. Bah.


----------



## Onnes (Jan 24, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Mm, hold up Beard Man, you've either had a quote failure or you're applying someone else' words to mine. I never said I wanted anyone silent. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as they say; you can't combat something if you don't know it's there.



I tried quoting two somewhat related posts and combining my response. Guess I won't try that again.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 24, 2012)

Onnes said:


> I tried quoting two somewhat related posts and combining my response. Guess I won't try that again.


It can give the wrong impression if you aren't careful about it eh. But it's all water under the bridge.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Jan 25, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> That's not simply 'appalling', it's _dangerous _in certain situations.



Curiosity has me here. Dangerous I can understand, but what specifically makes it appalling? Not that I'm denying it may be to other people, bit I'm interested in knowing why.



Kitutal said:


> I'm not all that surprised that people are being so open here, something about this place seems to leak all your inhibitions out, hence the artwork. That whole attitude of just going with it, doing what we want and not caring what others think of us, it works in here as well as outside.
> 
> For myself, polytheism. not that unusual now, but I'm expecting a few complaints even so.
> Also, I believe that I did not have to be here, I chose to enjoy this stuff, it was not some thing about myself that I discovered, I actually decided that this was something I wanted to be a part of, and now am.



Polytheism is great. It is also present in every religious text I have looked at.

I believe in Discordianism.


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 25, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> That's cool. In lacking better terms, what branch, religion, one?
> 
> I don't really know what to call it.



Hmm, less trouble than I was expecting.
But anyway, how much do you know of the Canaanites? If you read the bible, all that stuff about evil demon worshippers, yea, that's us. In our defence, it is rather exaggerated, that thing of people assuming the worst about each other, it goes back thousands of years at least. we're nice people, know not to take the whole faith thing too seriously, to rely on ourselves more than anyone else, that sort of thing.


----------



## Corto (Jan 25, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> Well it depends on how mentally retarded but other than that no, only because those aren't severe enough defects. There are paraplegics and deaf people that fit totally fine in society. It's the parasitic ones; by definition, ones that can _only_ take from their host while giving _nothing_ back.....those are the ones that would need to be dealt with (humanely).


So first you say that educational/economic reforms are not worth it because they're not as quick/cheap as genocide, so it's better so kill the fuck out of everyone not born in a first world country. Then you defend not killing your own disabled son, even while advocating the killing of millions just because of where they were born. 
Ok here's another question: Your son is born with Down syndrome. He'll never develop beyond the maturity of a 10 years old kid (ok maybe that wasn't Downs but you catch my drift). Would you kill your own son? Or do we reserve the "eugenics" for getting rid of poor brown people?


----------



## Killonoid (Jan 25, 2012)

Probably, assuming there's no cure or immediate treatment. Yeah it would be sad and I'd be heartbroken, not so much to the fact that I'm losing a son, but that he was born with the disease in the first place. At some point or another, he'd just be another mouth to feed. I would rather have no son than one with a severely crippling disease. The kind I had in mind are the ones that *need* humans to care for them in order to survive. Why should I break my back keeping you alive when you give nothing in return? If you can take care of yourself, no matter what disease, you should be safe.

And this has *nothing* to do with where they are born or their race at all. It solely matters on how capable you are as a human being disregarding all the 'emotional attachment'

If the world is overcrowded and strapped for resources, why should the terminally ill, severely crippled and elderly ect. have the same right to life as those who actually still have potential with theirs, and when the others have been living on borrowed time as it is?

_Also let me restate this again_.....this is my last resort to the problem. I would totally rather preserve human life. I don't want to kill people anymore than you do, but if push comes to shove and supplies to life are limited, I wouldn't think twice before throwing the weaker ones to the wolves to better secure my own survival.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 25, 2012)

In a time of crisis, die-offs occur naturally. That's kind of the point. If push comes to shove, the strong _will_ take from the weak, and there's little that can be done to stop that, but that's not really what you're suggesting. 

In lieu of an actual binding restraint, you recommend willingly killing off members of society force of strength, not losing them for a lack of it. This leaves the people's fate not in the hands of natural selection, but with fallible men who have motives and feelings of their own. 

Evolution does not, will not, and by its very nature can not need your help.


----------



## Onnes (Jan 25, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> If the world is overcrowded and strapped for resources, why should the terminally ill, severely crippled and elderly ect. have the same right to life as those who actually still have potential with theirs, and when the others have been living on borrowed time as it is?



To put it simply, people don't particularly want to live in a society where one's only value as an individual is through economic worth. I'm not sure what else to say, other than that it's hard to imagine someone making this kind of argument without completely dehumanizing themselves and everyone else around them.

Also, we are nowhere near the point of having to murder each other to ensure basic necessities are met. Where are you even getting this idea that we're all screwed unless we do the unthinkable?



> _Also let me restate this again_.....this is my last resort to the problem. I would totally rather preserve human life.



Yet you seem to really want it, given you haven't even proved the problem and are ignoring any other solutions.



> I don't want to kill people anymore than you do, but if push comes to shove and supplies to life are limited, I wouldn't think twice before throwing the weaker ones to the wolves to better secure my own survival.



That you think you have to kill to secure your survival just seems delusional, especially since I assume you are living in some highly developed nation with extravagant, if poorly distributed, wealth.


----------



## 8-bit (Jan 25, 2012)

Serpion5 said:


> I believe in Discordianism.




I'm a Unitologist :v


----------



## Carnie (Jan 25, 2012)

Serpion5 said:


> Curiosity has me here. Dangerous I can understand, but what specifically makes it appalling? Not that I'm denying it may be to other people, bit I'm interested in knowing why.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reading so much stuff like "The Discordian Society, whose definition is â€œThe Discordian Society has no definitionâ€ on the wikipedia page for that actually started to irritate me. 

"and tell us about it
or
if you prefer
don't.

There are no rules anywhere."

augh, I need some structure or something. 
I can understand a lot of stuff on there, though. How'd you get into it?


----------



## Killonoid (Jan 25, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Also, we are nowhere near the point of having to murder each other to ensure basic necessities are met. Where are you even getting this idea that we're all screwed unless we do the unthinkable?



Regardless of what other people say....I'm pretty sure the world's population _is_ growing. We are still a long way off from something like this no doubt, but how much longer _do we have_ before our resources start to dry up....30 maybe 40 years? As of right now we need about 1.3-1.5 Earth's to survive....and I only see *one*. This personally scares me that if we're _still_ growing, how much longer before things we deem necessary start to disappear.

The whole reason I brought up the argument in the first place is because I was under the impression that all of humanity would *still* try to help the weak in those circumstances....which I thought was dumb. *All my claims* take place in _*that world*_; where water and food are hard to come by even by a developed nations standards, and we've refused to change our ways and have killed off countless species and habitats to make more room for ourselves....a world that while might be far off for now, I feel will be a reality if something isn't done. 

As for what CAN be done now....honestly, I don't know. I guess the recycling and stuff helps, but it just seems like it's just buying us time to find a better solution, either government help or mass public awareness or something. I may have seemed a bit rash jumping right to mass genocide and eugenics, but it's something I would _at least_ _consider_ in those dire situations.

By *NO MEANS* did I mean we try these methods now....that would just be insane.
_Sorry if I offended and came of sounding like a Hitler_


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 25, 2012)

i believe this thread is dildos


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 25, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> I believe that in order to achieve a balance  between humans and the wild and to help conserve our resources....we  have to "cull the human race" First the severely elderly and those in a  vegetative state or coma, then infants that without EXTENSIVE surgery or  care for the rest of their life would die and the severely mentally  retarded. Follow this pattern as much as deemed nessesary or until only  the healthy, fit, and able survive.





Killonoid said:


> Regardless of what other people say....I'm pretty sure the world's population _is_ growing. We are still a long way off from something like this no doubt, but how much longer _do we have_ before our resources start to dry up....30 maybe 40 years? As of right now we need about 1.3-1.5 Earth's to survive....and I only see *one*. This personally scares me that if we're _still_ growing, how much longer before things we deem necessary start to disappear.
> 
> The whole reason I brought up the argument in the first place is because I was under the impression that all of humanity would *still* try to help the weak in those circumstances....which I thought was dumb. *All my claims* take place in _*that world*_; where water and food are hard to come by even by a developed nations standards, and we've refused to change our ways and have killed off countless species and habitats to make more room for ourselves....a world that while might be far off for now, I feel will be a reality if something isn't done.
> 
> ...



Frantic backpeddling aside, you're still failing to understand the basic problem with artificial selection, which is that while a life that is truly unsustainable in the absolute sense will end, any sort of preemptive measure is denying a life that might have otherwise been sustained. 

In other words, it's murder.

EDIT: I do recognize that there are situations were a life could theoretically be sustained, but for moral or practical reasons can/should not, but those situations should 1. Be decided on a case-by-case basis and 2. Not involve a deliberate execution.


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 25, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> Yeah, I don't really stir up any drama where I go.
> 
> Anyway, I've heard of them and that's basically all. It's practically unheard of, in my area, and I assume you mean the Western Bible. The basic Orthodox bible, never stated really anything of importance that I remember, in regard to Canaanites. For the rest, that's fair enough, and to be expected from most people. So is it common in England, I take it?



there's a different bible out there? It's all over the tanakh/old testament. Anyways, not really common anywhere, well, the polytheist bit is, even excluding hinduism, which is becoming a major religeon over here, we number in the hundreds of thousands, but our specific website, which I really need to go back to some day, has something like 200 members, one of the smallest such groups out there.
But we're getting a little off topic here, I think. So, believing in gods with horns and tails and such like and thinking I can choose beforehand what I'm going to like and dislike isn't bad enough? I guess I'm just not appaling enough a person.
Or maybe people here are just not easily upset. Merely being a member of this site would be bad enough in many places, throw in that I'm a gay pagan, with a history of attempting magic in my younger years, and am planning on writing a book where someone tries to stop the end of the world (the one in the bible with the second coming and all that lot)... very relaxed, accepting community we have here though.


----------



## ADF (Jan 25, 2012)

The United States of America is experiencing a great depression deflationary collapse *right now*. The reason I know this is because of the most recent dollar supply figures to be released by the Fed.

The dollar supply is collapsing as old debts are repaid; but not enough new ones are being created to maintain the currency supply. The result of a shock to the system caused by a catastrophic economic event (2008 credit crunch/housing bubble burst), damaging confidence in the economy and prompting low risk behaviour. This is precisely what happened in the great depression. The stock market crash scared people away from risk and they tried to pay off debt, shrinking the currency supply by nearly a third.

But what those rapid up and down movements we are seeing indicate is that the Fed is doing everything in their power to fight this collapse in the currency supply. Whenever the currency supply begins to plummet, the Fed pumps out a dose of quantitative easing in an effort to counter it. But eventually the collapse resumes, requiring greater and greater doses of money creation by the Fed to counter it.

If the Fed keeps this up, they're going to cause an inflationary collapse. But if they stop, there will be a deflationary collapse. Either way, things are not looking good.

Unless of course you want to regard all this as a conspiracy theory and believe everything is fine. People have a tendency to want to ignore bad news.


----------



## Onnes (Jan 25, 2012)

ADF said:


> The United States of America is experiencing a great depression deflationary collapse *right now*. The reason I know this is because of the most recent dollar supply figures to be released by the Fed.
> 
> The dollar supply is collapsing as old debts are repaid; but not enough new ones are being created to maintain the currency supply. The result of a shock to the system caused by a catastrophic economic event (2008 credit crunch/housing bubble burst), damaging confidence in the economy and prompting low risk behaviour. This is precisely what happened in the great depression. The stock market crash scared people away from risk and they tried to pay off debt, shrinking the currency supply by nearly a third.
> 
> ...



You are going to bring this into yet another thread? You seriously have a one-track austrian infested mind. 

Deflation occurs when demand falls across most of the economy, leading to an excess of supply relative to the amount circulating currency. When the recession hit demand took a nosedive and everyone started focusing on either hoarding money or paying off debts. The obvious way to counter deflation is to increase the monetary supply, however those indebted private entities will still want to deleverage themselves before they start spending again. For a brief look on how this is going down, try here (http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/story/2012-01-18/world-economies-debt/52653254/1). The fed has no reason to stop expanding the monetary base until a high level of inflation occurs, and that won't happen anytime soon because we still have significant private debts and unused capacity for all this money to go to. There is absolutely no reason to assume we'll instantaneously enter hyperinflation, and the bond market still predicts average 2% inflation going into the future.


----------



## ADF (Jan 25, 2012)

Onnes said:


> You are going to bring this into yet another thread? You seriously have a one-track austrian infested mind.
> 
> Deflation occurs when demand falls across most of the economy, leading to an excess of supply relative to the amount circulating currency. When the recession hit demand took a nosedive and everyone started focusing on either hoarding money or paying off debts. The obvious way to counter deflation is to increase the monetary supply, however those indebted private entities will still want to deleverage themselves before they start spending again. For a brief look on how this is going down, try here (http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/story/2012-01-18/world-economies-debt/52653254/1). The fed has no reason to stop expanding the monetary base until a high level of inflation occurs, and that won't happen anytime soon because we still have significant private debts and unused capacity for all this money to go to. There is absolutely no reason to assume we'll instantaneously enter hyperinflation, and the bond market still predicts average 2% inflation going into the future.



It's appropriate for the thread, given the theme; is it not?

You make it sound like all this is a typical thing. I welcome you to find any point in the dollars entire history that looks anything like this than the great depression.

The only reason the dollar hasn't seen terrible inflation yet is because it is the world reserve currency, inflation can be exported. But clearly the Fed cannot triple the dollar supply again and not expect consequences. There is only so many dollars the rest of the world can absorb in this recession enviornment.


----------



## Onnes (Jan 25, 2012)

ADF said:


> You make it sound like all this is a typical thing. I welcome you to find any point in the dollars entire history that looks anything like this than the great depression.



Exactly. Because of the enormity of the great depression, this is a very well studied phenomenon. We aren't operating blind here, unless one chooses to ignore academic economics in favor of other sources.



> The only reason the dollar hasn't seen terrible inflation yet is because it is the world reserve currency, inflation can be exported. But clearly the Fed cannot triple the dollar supply again and not expect consequences. There is only so many dollars the rest of the world can absorb in this recession enviornment.



Huh? The American economy is still no where near operating at capacity and it shows in our unemployment numbers and GDP. Serious inflation cannot occur until the economy at least returns to trend. If investors believed the dollar was going to enter hyperinflation then they would never stick their money there; there are always other currencies and other goods that will hold value better than a hyperinflating US dollar.


----------



## Spatel (Jan 25, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> Frantic backpeddling aside, you're still failing to understand the basic problem with artificial selection, which is that while a life that is truly unsustainable in the absolute sense will end, any sort of preemptive measure is denying a life that might have otherwise been sustained.


  The problem here is that you make a distinction between artificial and natural selection, when there is no such distinction, and even if there were, the 'natural' state isn't necessarily the desirable one.


----------



## Corto (Jan 26, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> And this has *nothing* to do with where they are born or their race at all. It solely matters on how capable you are as a human being disregarding all the 'emotional attachment'


No you specifically said that you prefered genocide over economic/educational reforms that would help these "uncapable" people because it was cheaper. That is basically saying that the first ones you'll throw at the oven are those living in the third world. 



Killonoid said:


> _Also let me restate this again_.....this is my last resort to the problem. I would totally rather preserve human life.


Except if preserving human life means paying for educational/economic reforms to help the less fortunate. Because, you know, it's more expensive and harder than killing the fuck out of everyone. Once again, your words, not mine. 

(Here's the post I'm refering to, by the way) "Why spend all that time, money, effort, and resources on something that may just not be worth saving" doesn't leave much room open to interpretation. 

So yeah.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 26, 2012)

Spatel said:


> The problem here is that you make a distinction between artificial and natural selection, when there is no such distinction, and even if there were, the 'natural' state isn't necessarily the desirable one.



True, technically everything that is is the natural state, otherwise it wouldn't be. The line between a natural occurrence and a deliberate one is ultimately arbitrary, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's useless.


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Jan 26, 2012)

I believe that everybody is wrong


----------



## 8-bit (Jan 26, 2012)

Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot said:


> I believe that everybody is wrong



But that includes you. And if _you're_ wrong, then you must be wrong about everybody being wrong. So everybody is right. Including you. But then everybody is wrong, including you. And if _you're_ wrong, then you must be wrong about everybody being  wrong. So everybody is right. Including you. But then everybody is  wrong, including you. And if _you're_ wrong, then you must be wrong about everybody being  wrong. So everybody is right. Including you. But then everybody is  wrong, including you. And if _you're_ wrong, then you must be wrong about everybody being  wrong. So everybody is right. Including you. But then everybody is  wrong, including you. And if _you're_ wrong, then you must be wrong about everybody being  wrong. So everybody is right. Including you. But then everybody is  wrong, including you. And if _you're_ wrong, then you must be wrong about everybody being  wrong. So everybody is right. Including you. But then everybody is  wrong, including you. And if _you're_ wrong, then you must be wrong about everybody being  wrong. So everybody is right. Including you. But then everybody is  wrong, including you...



*Brain asplode*


----------



## Killonoid (Jan 26, 2012)

Corto said:


> No you specifically said that you prefered genocide over economic/educational reforms that would help these "uncapable" people because it was cheaper. That is basically saying that the first ones you'll throw at the oven are those living in the third world.
> 
> 
> Except if preserving human life means paying for educational/economic reforms to help the less fortunate. Because, you know, it's more expensive and harder than killing the fuck out of everyone. Once again, your words, not mine.
> ...




What are you not getting! Peoples opinions *CAN* change as mine has. Let it go!!! You're still talking like I *haven't* been saying I was wrong (or at least not clear). Becides you're just taking what I said and saying it means the opposite. Also, do you *really* think the "uncapables" ONLY live in the third world....because you're dead wrong. Stop trying to get support from something I wish I hadn't said!!!


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Jan 26, 2012)

Carnie said:


> Reading so much stuff like "The Discordian Society, whose definition is â€œThe Discordian Society has no definitionâ€ on the wikipedia page for that actually started to irritate me.
> 
> "and tell us about it
> or
> ...



It suits my mindset. Non destructive Chaos. I could go deeper, but as I prefer, I won't 



Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot said:


> I believe that everybody is wrong



With no reason given, I must assume one. So... You did not give sarcasm, meaning this was meant seriously. So you think all of the opinions given in the thread so far are invalid? How do you give credence to this viewpoint. I believe your reasoning if any is flawed and as such, _you_ are the only poster in the thread so far who is _actually_ wrong. 

How about this. 


I believe that I am, by certain definitions, a perfect being. I believe the same can be applied to the majority of people on this forum. I believe the same can be applied to many more besides.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 26, 2012)

Serpion5 said:


> With no reason given, I must assume one. So... You did not give sarcasm, meaning this was meant seriously. So you think all of the opinions given in the thread so far are invalid? How do you give credence to this viewpoint. I believe your reasoning if any is flawed and as such, *you are the only poster in the thread so far who is actually wrong. *



No, no. 

I'm wrong too.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Jan 26, 2012)

There's no need to blindly follow WTF just because he's setting a new trend Unsilenced. :v


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Jan 26, 2012)

yes, someone call for me?


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Jan 26, 2012)

If I said I believe everyone is wrong, wouldn't that mean I am wrong as well?


----------



## TechnoGypsy (Jan 26, 2012)

Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot said:


> If I said I believe everyone is wrong, wouldn't that mean I am wrong as well?


No, you'll be sucked into the vortex of illogical paradoxness before the workings of the universe can decide.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 26, 2012)

Serpion5 said:


> There's no need to blindly follow WTF just because he's setting a new trend Unsilenced. :v



Eh doubleposts and doesn't afraid of anything. Speaking of which, 



Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot said:


> If I said I believe everyone is wrong, wouldn't that mean I am wrong as well?



If that wasn't the entire point of your post, I don't think I can be your fan anymore. Sorry.


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Jan 26, 2012)

TechnoGypsy said:


> No, you'll be sucked into the vortex of illogical paradoxness before the workings of the universe can decide.



 I have been "wrong" on every step on here tonight.  How did I manage to pull that off


----------



## TechnoGypsy (Jan 26, 2012)

Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot said:


> I have been "wrong" on every step on here tonight.  How did I manage to pull that off


Looking back, you _did _â€‹have tea with two sugars.


----------



## Dyluck (Jan 26, 2012)

homeless people are just lazy
stripey socks are cute
blacks should pull themselves up by their bootstraps


----------



## ADF (Jan 26, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Exactly. Because of the enormity of the great depression, this is a very well studied phenomenon. We aren't operating blind here, unless one chooses to ignore academic economics in favor of other sources.



If by "not operating blind" you mean everything the Fed has learned to counter the great depression. Then that apparently means pumping trillions of dollars into an economy that cannot absorb it, because the amount of goods and services available to make use of all this extra money are currently experiencing a recession.

That is one way of stopping deflation, but it only leads to the opposite extreme.



Onnes said:


> Huh? The American economy is still no where near operating at capacity and it shows in our unemployment numbers and GDP. Serious inflation cannot occur until the economy at least returns to trend.



Can you elaborate on "at capacity". I've heard you say this in the past, but currency supply fundamentals don't care whether or not the US economy is operating at max capacity. In fact, a lower supply of goods and services actually leads to higher inflation because there is lower supply to absorb the increase in money. More money creats more demand, but if there aren't enough goods and services to meet that demand; then prices are bid upward.

Are you referring to the banks? While the Fed is pumping out money, the banks may be hoarding it. The M3 currency supply makes up the majority of dollars the economy uses, which are loaned into existence by banks using the base currency supply issued by the Fed. If banks are just hanging on to the money printed by the Fed, not loaning it out, then the explosion in currency supply has yet to reach the economy.

They could be parking it in government treasuries, which would explain why their interest rates are so low, despite the US credit rating having been downgraded for showing no intention of tackling the national debts growth.



Onnes said:


> If investors believed the dollar was going to enter hyperinflation then they would never stick their money there; there are always other currencies and other goods that will hold value better than a hyperinflating US dollar.



Investors are fleeing the Euro right now, they are reacting to the dollars historic value as a safe haven. But China is the biggest industrial power house now, and the US has gone from the biggest creditor in the world; to the biggest debtor. The only thing that gives the dollar any strength these days is it being the worlds reserve currency, it's not the safe haven it used to be; and they're going to figure that out sooner or later.

Let me just emphasise my previous point further. If you deduct the base currency supply from the M3 currency supply, you get this.

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3843/mecurrencysupply.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KHXLa2PgJU

Now there is not a single point in the dollars history that this has happened, except before the great depression. So regardless of whether you think the dollar can hyper inflate, you must recognise the US is on the brink of another great depression right now. Whether the Fed can counter that through pumping the economy full of money is up in the air.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 26, 2012)

Killonoid said:


> What are you not getting! Peoples opinions *CAN* change as mine has. Let it go!!! You're still talking like I *haven't* been saying I was wrong (or at least not clear). Becides you're just taking what I said and saying it means the opposite. Also, do you *really* think the "uncapables" ONLY live in the third world....because you're dead wrong. Stop trying to get support from something I wish I hadn't said!!!


The fact is, is that if you actually care about overpopulation, then the "uncapables" of the developed world shouldn't be your concern. There just aren't enough of them, it's drops in the ocean, especially considering that most first world populations are already having neutral or negative population growth and don't really need any more push for that. Killing our disabled people is a lot of cruelty (even if it's done humanely, most who wish to live should have a right to, not to mention the anguish to their family and friends) for basically no pay back, it just wouldn't have a notable impact on global resource supplies. If a person actually cares about overpopulation, they need to look away from America's halfway houses and toward the poor of poor countries, because that's where the overpopulation comes from. 

From there, your options are either violence or educational/economic reform. If you're the sort who doesn't think s/he should have to stoop to helping the "weak," well yeah it does kind of start looking like a kill-brownie-quest, especially considering that reforms probably are a more effective way to deal with it. With violence, you will have war, and then generations of embittered survivors breathing down your back for the next century or two. Not to mention the survivors would probably return to their previous birth rate in fairly short order, considering there's likely been no change in conditions. Also, the impact on the market could be quite considerable, this sounds kind of nasty but do you know how much we rely on them for cheap labor? They're important too, their sudden disappearance would cause a shock wave in the global market. If it's got to be dealt with, it's got to be dealth with it in poor countries, and the best way to do that is to do it in a humanitarian fashion. 

Alternatively you can keep yourself fixated on the "uncapables" in our country but then you're going into ableist jackhole territory. Claiming to care about overpopulation but keeping your cross-hairs on disabled people of the West is like being a preacher of militant vegetarianism but only cutting lobster from your own diet. It's just a lot of pain (to the people who would rather be alive, and to their family and friends) for no significant outcome. If you care about overpopulation, shift your target and please shift your methodology as well. If you're that fixated on killing/abandoning disabled people, then be honest that it's some kind of objectivist or Master Race ideology, because it will not have a real impact on the population, especially considering that most severely disabled people never have children anyway.


----------



## Corto (Jan 26, 2012)

My "This" button ain't working, but "this".


----------



## Bir (Jan 26, 2012)

I believe that no matter how hard you try, no matter how much you've learned, no matter how much you do, life is always going to kick you in the tits and make you ask for more because you think you're handling it and you think you enjoy it and you think life is amazing and sweet and beautiful.

Which it is, but then, I'm life's bitch, aren't I? Do I know if life is beautiful? Hmmm. Certainly seems that way, but society has molded me and nobody is truly themselves.. If I was allowed to truly be myself, where would I live? What do I do? Who would I be?

I believe there is no end to the amount of things we can learn and that we should all strive to learn as much as we can.

And I also believe that if you don't, there's nothing wrong with that because we all do what we want either way.

Also,

I don't believe in depression. I think depression is the act of feeling sorry for yourself, and not having the motivation to do anything about it. I used to be "depressed" until I figured out feeling sorry for myself felt like a sin.


----------



## Criminal Scum (Jan 26, 2012)

Bir said:


> Also,
> 
> I don't believe in depression. I think depression is the act of feeling sorry for yourself, and not having the motivation to do anything about it. I used to be "depressed" until I figured out feeling sorry for myself felt like a sin.



I used to have a similar mentality. I spent years in self-denied depression because I felt that I didn't have the right, due to my privileges. It's also why my grades and self esteem have sunk over the years, and why I'm so introverted.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 26, 2012)

Bir said:


> I don't believe in depression. I think depression is the act of feeling sorry for yourself, and not having the motivation to do anything about it. I used to be "depressed" until I figured out feeling sorry for myself felt like a sin.



Depression can be different things to different people, and shouldn't be dismissed on account of one personal experience.


----------



## Milo (Jan 26, 2012)

Dyluck said:


> homeless people are just lazy
> stripey socks are cute
> blacks should pull themselves up by their bootstraps



stripey socks are adorable. I plan to get leg wamers.... I just over did it didn't I.

edit: you edited that out. wtf. are you ashamed of stripey socks?


----------



## Onnes (Jan 26, 2012)

ADF said:


> Can you elaborate on "at capacity". I've heard you say this in the past, but currency supply fundamentals don't care whether or not the US economy is operating at max capacity. In fact, a lower supply of goods and services actually leads to higher inflation because there is lower supply to absorb the increase in money. More money creats more demand, but if there aren't enough goods and services to meet that demand; then prices are bid upward.



The recession was caused by a dramatic decrease in aggregate demand. Supply, of course, then decreased in response. You are claiming that should demand increase, supply will be unable to return to the previous trend resulting in immediate inflation. Supply isn't fixed you know, and inflation occurs when supply cannot easily rise in response to demand. In the present case, we already know that supply is depressed due to the reduction in demand which implies that it can easily increase if additional demand materializes.



> Are you referring to the banks? While the Fed is pumping out money, the banks may be hoarding it. The M3 currency supply makes up the majority of dollars the economy uses, which are loaned into existence by banks using the base currency supply issued by the Fed. If banks are just hanging on to the money printed by the Fed, not loaning it out, then the explosion in currency supply has yet to reach the economy.
> 
> They could be parking it in government treasuries, which would explain why their interest rates are so low, despite the US credit rating having been downgraded for showing no intention of tackling the national debts growth.
> 
> ...



First, M3 is notoriously hard to interpret, as it includes all the bizarre products of the so-called shadow banking sectors. Second, there's a reason why more direct stimulus programs, of the kind enacted by the federal government and not the central bank, are typically seen as part of the necessary response to this kind of contractionary scenario. There's also still the problem that if investors thought the dollar were doomed they'd choose other investments--the US succumbing to debt would be a highly inflationary scenario and no one would want to be left holding US treasuries. 

Look, it's been the consensus of academic economists for decades that the great depression was not an inevitable event and could have largely been prevented by a proper federal response. The relevant theories have been tested and proven in numerous scenarios across the world. You want to throw all this out for the opinions of tea leaf readers on Youtube.

Actually, let's look at the deeper issue here. There's a large number of people who think another great depression is necessary, as punishment for mankind's economic sins. To them a depression must be unavoidable as the alternative would be, in a cosmic sense, unjust. There's so simply no room in their world for anything that doesn't lead to widespread suffering.

This is all I'm going to say on subject. This is a poor thread for it and no one else is going to read it anyway.


----------



## Onnes (Jan 26, 2012)

Bir said:


> I don't believe in depression. I think depression is the act of feeling sorry for yourself, and not having the motivation to do anything about it. I used to be "depressed" until I figured out feeling sorry for myself felt like a sin.



This is the great thing about mental illnesses: you are always free to say they aren't real. Damn schizophrenics pretending to be all crazy and shit and having the time of their lives.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 26, 2012)

I believe we all took the blue pill instead of the red. :V


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 26, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe we all took the blue pill instead of the red. :V


I'd like to know what happens if you take both.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 26, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe we all took the blue pill instead of the red. :V


I don't _know _what I took.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Jan 26, 2012)

Pretty sure I just walked in on disabled people genocide.
Which is more or less the kind of unpopular opinions I expect from FAF.


I believe bisexuals have to choose.


----------



## ADF (Jan 26, 2012)

Onnes said:


> This is all I'm going to say on subject. This is a poor thread for it and no one else is going to read it anyway.



If you'd rather I stopped and not tackle your points, fair enough. Though your idea of tested and proven is questionable, given the uncharted territory we are in.

But that's the "Things you believe that would appal others", that failure is necessary. People don't like to hear it, but the fruit of avoiding failure is laid out for everyone to see.


----------



## Yago (Jan 26, 2012)

Grae Sparrowkin said:


> Do you have anything that you believe that would upset other people? I will give examples.
> 
> I believe that it is selfish to cry at a funeral because you are crying that YOU don't get to spend any more time with the person, not because they are dead and don't get to enjoy life anymore.
> I believe that parents and other elders don't deserve respect just because they are parents and elders. They have to earn it like everyone else.
> ...



WHA? How'd you get inside my head. I agree so much. I get pissy when people say elders deserve respect.

Mental illness exists, however, it is as you said, just a different wiring and nothing more.

I myself also believe strongly in open relationships.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 26, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> I'd like to know what happens if you take both.



There's an xkcd for that.


----------



## Dyluck (Jan 26, 2012)

Milo said:


> I plan to get leg wamers



NO. NOT CUTE. >:I


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Jan 26, 2012)

I believe that life, the universe, and everything is part of the great cosmic joke.  Everything is sacred, yet nothing is.


----------



## Milo (Jan 26, 2012)

Dyluck said:


> NO. NOT CUTE. >:I



LEG WARMERS AND ARM WARMERS... and a THONG.

yup


----------



## Namba (Jan 26, 2012)

I believe in a thing called love.


----------



## Dyluck (Jan 26, 2012)

Milo said:


> LEG WARMERS AND ARM WARMERS... and a THONG.
> 
> yup



why would you do this to me :c


----------



## Milo (Jan 26, 2012)

Dyluck said:


> why would you do this to me :c




psh, like I could pull off something that feminine (nope nope, don't say it) although I do want striped socks. something warm and has a summery feel. 

actually, at FC, I saw this blue underwear with a paw in the middle, and I wanted it :< but not because of the paw! I just liked the color... just be glad I didn't try to get the one with the picture of a sheath in the middle :V

oh, I also bought a cheap husky tail there and it squeaks and... oh god, this is all appalling. please don't kill me


----------



## Greyscale (Jan 26, 2012)

Hey David, I thought you liked faggots... or something.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 26, 2012)

I'm appalled but it has little to do with beliefs.


----------



## Dyluck (Jan 26, 2012)

Milo said:


> the one with the picture of a sheath in the middle



i hate the world



Greyscale said:


> Hey David, I thought you liked faggots... or something.



i like _MEN_


----------



## Milo (Jan 26, 2012)

Greyscale said:


> Hey David, I thought you liked faggots... or something.



I can only guess the husky tail part probably caused him to face palm so hard, it knocked him out face first onto his desk.


----------



## Milo (Jan 26, 2012)

Dyluck said:


> i like _MEN_



I AM man. just yesterday, I shaved my beard. it was almost an inch long! took me 4 years, but it looked manly


----------



## Spatel (Jan 26, 2012)

Hateful Bitch said:


> I believe bisexuals have to choose.



I choose to ignore this post. That was easy!


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Jan 27, 2012)

Spatel said:


> I choose to ignore this post. That was easy!



What a queer.
I know which side you've chosen >:c


----------



## Spatel (Jan 27, 2012)

is jungle fever a side? because that's what I've chosen


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 27, 2012)

I believe that Jazz is better than Dubstep.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Jan 27, 2012)

Spatel said:


> is jungle fever a side? because that's what I've chosen


It is a side in that you can have Straight or Gay with a side of jungle fever.


----------



## Milo (Jan 27, 2012)

I think alligators and crocodiles are cute.


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Jan 27, 2012)

all humans aren't born equal and people are not equal, And no not in the derp sense of race or gender.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Jan 27, 2012)

Milo said:


> I think alligators and crocodiles are cute.


Weak
This isn't appalling at all

This is actually great


----------



## Sar (Jan 27, 2012)

Social Networking sites exist so that people can stalk who they have a crush on and drop innuendo messages towards them.
:V


----------



## Dyluck (Jan 27, 2012)

Spatel said:


> is jungle fever a side? because that's what I've chosen



i just keep liking you more and more!


----------



## Llamapotamus (Jan 28, 2012)

I believe gay marriage is a good thing only in the sense that it means the government finally acknowledges people of the same sex who love each other should have the right to marry. I do not believe that this changes the relationship itself that much for those that already live together and have committed to each other. I also do not believe this would suddenly improve peoples' quality of life or bring about a sudden drop in divorce rates. Then again, I'm pretty cynical on the whole idea of marriage...


----------



## Onnes (Jan 28, 2012)

Llamapotamus said:


> I believe gay marriage is a good thing only in the sense that it means the government finally acknowledges people of the same sex who love each other should have the right to marry. I do not believe that this changes the relationship itself that much for those that already live together and have committed to each other. I also do not believe this would suddenly improve peoples' quality of life or bring about a sudden drop in divorce rates. Then again, I'm pretty cynical on the whole idea of marriage...



Bear in mind that marriage is, in most places, a legal institution which grants unique material and procedural benefits which cannot otherwise be gotten. So, from a purely materialistic perspective, legal marriage would in fact be an improvement for many couples.


----------



## NEStalgia Fox (Jan 28, 2012)

SnooPING AS usual is quite offensive to many a person.


----------



## Spatel (Jan 30, 2012)

Hateful Bitch said:


> It is a side in that you can have Straight or Gay with a side of jungle fever.



there is no straight or gay, the same way there is no "blonde-sexual or "brunette-sexual"

and for me, there is only jungle fever


----------



## Gucci Mane (Jan 30, 2012)

i am smarter than newt gingrich


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jan 30, 2012)

I am smarter and cooler than that Lego man running for president.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

I believe there's absolutely nothing wrong with drawn kiddy porn and people need to stop being so damn uptight about it.


----------



## Calico-Feathers (Jan 30, 2012)

anyone not feeding their animal a species appropriate diet needs to be smacked in their face. :|


----------



## Namba (Jan 30, 2012)

Gucci Mane said:


> i am smarter than newt gingrich


I'm smarter than Gingrich and Romney combined.


----------



## Neuron (Jan 30, 2012)

Aliens, and the governments of the world are fully aware and they have various reasons for not disclosing it. (Which I really can't blame them.)

There, I said it.


----------



## Namba (Jan 30, 2012)

I believe there's a possibility that this forum is one giant bot... and you're the only user. >_>


----------



## Wreth (Jan 30, 2012)

Lacus said:


> Aliens, and the governments of the world are fully aware and they have various reasons for not disclosing it. (Which I really can't blame them.)
> 
> There, I said it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59zLZ6PpeSA


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2012)

I don't value life at all.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 30, 2012)

I believe that Fall is the best season of the year.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> I can't fully believe that.


Why not?


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> I've witnessed some pretty awful things, and everyone had emotion/was saddened or angry.  Even the supposed "hard", emotionally blunt people.  So if a friend, family member, or loved one died within plain sight of you watching; you'd be unphased?
> 
> To me, it just seems so very unlikely.



Happened a few times. Sure I'd miss them but I'm not the whole "life is sacred" type of person. I got over it fairly quickly.


----------



## Onnes (Jan 30, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Happened a few times. Sure I'd miss them but I'm not the whole "life is sacred" type of person. I got over it fairly quickly.



So to clarify, you think that life, in and of itself, holds no value, but you still assign value to people as entities with thoughts, emotions, and histories? Or am I being overly generous here?


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2012)

Onnes said:


> So to clarify, you think that life, in and of itself, holds no value, but you still assign value to people as entities with thoughts, emotions, and histories? Or am I being overly generous here?



Pretty much, yeah.


----------



## Dyluck (Jan 31, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Pretty much, yeah.



ok, good, for a minute there i was worried we had a psychopath on the forum


----------



## triage (Jan 31, 2012)

I'd like to meet Charles Manson before he/I dies


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 31, 2012)

People do not want Social Equality - they just want to be the person who gets to oppress others and gets away with it. If you drew a political cartoon of a boot squishing someone, they're going to think, "I want to be the person doing the squishing."


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 31, 2012)

I believe that War is never the answer to solve a problem.


----------



## veeno (Jan 31, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe that War is never the answer to solve a problem.


I belive that war is always the answer.

:V


----------



## Schecter (Jan 31, 2012)

I dont believe in love of any kinda =\


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 31, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe that War is never the answer to solve a problem.





Dragonfurry said:


> We should start a revolution. That is all I have to say.



Cool pacifism bro.



veeno said:


> I belive that war is always the answer.
> 
> :V



No man, no problem.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 31, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> Cool pacifism bro.



Never said I was a pacifist. No one can be a pure pacifist unless they would let people kill them and there families. The revolution part was a bit vague on my part. What I want is a peaceful revolution if we can get one at all.


----------



## antiChristDingo (Jan 31, 2012)

Charlie Manson is a genius.. A twisted demented genius. 

Self help is bull

Marijuana is for idiots or people who have to hide from themselves. 

It's bold statement Tuesday...


----------



## Aleu (Jan 31, 2012)

Dyluck said:


> ok, good, for a minute there i was worried we had a psychopath on the forum



yeah...about that :V



antiChristDingo said:


> Marijuana is for idiots or people who have to hide from themselves.



Hiding from yourself. That's like...deep man. *takes a hit*


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 31, 2012)

I believe that people can't be trusted, but I also believe peoples feelings are important and valuable. Is that messed up or can someone give me a explanation of what I just said?


----------



## Calico-Feathers (Jan 31, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe that War is never the answer to solve a problem.


I believe that war... war never changes. :v


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 31, 2012)

Calico-Feathers said:


> I believe that war... war never changes. :v



Or does it?


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Feb 1, 2012)

People can be trusted, but trust isn't unbreakable. 

Just like love, hate, respect, admiration and friendship.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 1, 2012)

Serpion5 said:


> *People can be trusted, but trust isn't unbreakable.
> *
> Just like love, hate, respect, admiration and friendship.



That would be appalling to either a completely paranoid lunatic, or a carebear. 



Digitalpotato said:


> People do not want Social Equality - they  just want to be the person who gets to oppress others and gets away with  it. If you drew a political cartoon of a boot squishing someone,  they're going to think, "I want to be the person doing the  squishing."



"I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." -Ashleigh Brilliant


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Feb 1, 2012)

I was actually referring to Dragonfurry's post. Lack of quote = fail on my part.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 1, 2012)

Serpion5 said:


> I was actually referring to Dragonfurry's post. Lack of quote = fail on my part.



Ah. 

Of note: Testing shows that people are more trustworthy than they are trusting. Within a random group of people, you are more likely to think you're going to get screwed than you are to actually get screwed.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm the opposite of that, unsilenced. 

I think it goes either way. I tend to trust and then get screwed over. Trust is what keeps my face intact at work though (dog grooming, they can get mean...they tend to bite people who are afraid and I have never been bitten. I always handle the nasty or large dogs, even though I'm tiny, because they know I'm not scared and tend to respect that. I trust all of them until they give reason not to, and it's served me well.)


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Feb 1, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe that War is never the answer to solve a problem.


War is pretty effective.
Shoot something enough and everything is fixed.

I believe that the best way to do something isn't always the nice way.
Usually still favour of what I judge to be the nice way though.


----------



## antiChristDingo (Feb 1, 2012)

I agree with hateful, and with the Fallout quote. War doesn't change.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Feb 1, 2012)

The beauty of total equality will be obscured by the blood of our fallen brothers. Indiscriminate killing. 
Nobody will be safe when all men walk together hand in hand.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Feb 2, 2012)

Everyone's world revolves around themselves. This is natural.


----------



## Bambi (Feb 2, 2012)

It's sobering to know that people are just as afraid of the future as I am. On the other hand, while it's sobering to know that many people share my fear about the future of our nations economy, military, and educational infrastructure, it's also damning to know that the worst monsters are those from within, not from without.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Feb 2, 2012)

On the social ladder shit can't fall up.


Appalling belief: I think my posts are actually okay.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 8, 2012)

I like Tom Cruise (at least as an actor, his personal life and beliefs are none of my concern).


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Feb 8, 2012)

I hate Jack Black more than anyone else in the entire world.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 8, 2012)

im part alien and part black


----------



## NerdyMunk (Feb 8, 2012)

I like Nicolas Cage. When he's not crazy acting.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Feb 8, 2012)

Clayton said:


> im part alien and part black


Ain't everyone. Like with how we were all in Africa and then the aliens mated with us. Not appalling.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 8, 2012)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> I like Nicolas Cage. When he's not crazy acting.



[yt]xP1-oquwoL8[/yt]


----------



## Aleu (Feb 8, 2012)

I think Keanu Reeves is a great actor.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Feb 9, 2012)

Pony Rule 34 is amazing.

If that doesn't appall you, I don't know what will.


----------



## AlexInsane (Feb 9, 2012)

I believe that all extremist conservatives should be electroshocked for their own health and safety.


----------



## triage (Feb 9, 2012)

I kind of wish I was white just so I could wear a hitler youth haircut


----------



## Llamapotamus (Feb 9, 2012)

Commiecomrade said:


> Pony Rule 34 is amazing.
> 
> If that doesn't appall you, I don't know what will.



I believe this is not appalling, but most of today's popular music is.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 9, 2012)

triage said:


> I kind of wish I was white just so I could wear a hitler youth haircut


I can for you


----------



## Commiecomrade (Feb 10, 2012)

Llamapotamus said:


> I believe this is not appalling, but most of today's popular music is.


I should have remembered this is a furry forum.


----------



## Semisar (Feb 11, 2012)

-I believe eugenics was a poorly executed, but good idea.
-I regard social conservatives as less human due to their inferior critical thinking skills which along with thumbs separate us from animals, and I also regard them as dangerous to humanity which gives the justification to take ANY action against them for the good of humanity.
-I think democracy should be a privilege, not a right.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 11, 2012)

Semisar said:


> -I believe eugenics was a poorly executed, but good idea.
> -I regard social conservatives as less human due to their inferior critical thinking skills which along with thumbs separate us from animals, and I also regard them as dangerous to humanity which gives the justification to take ANY action against them for the good of humanity.
> -I think democracy should be a privilege, not a right.



So you're  against social conservatism, I.E the government imposing moral beliefs on its citizens, this including restrictions on who people can have sex with and marry, but you SUPPORT the government being able to prevent people from breeding and voting?

Cool beliefs bro.


----------



## Semisar (Feb 12, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> So you're  against social conservatism, I.E the government imposing moral beliefs on its citizens, this including restrictions on who people can have sex with and marry, but you SUPPORT the government being able to prevent people from breeding and voting?



Look at the name of the thread. I'm not going to justify my beliefs here.


----------



## Blutide (Feb 12, 2012)

I am not sure if I have responded here before, but here is what I believe.

There is no God. 
We should beat our children, when they are out of line.
I hate assholes that still say Faggot, fag, and any other version of that word. It still hurts to hear those words, shut the fuck up already its not cool.
People that don't stick to what they believe and flip flop all the time need to be burned.
Give people a second chance, people do Change. ( Hard concept? Get your head out of your ass, what if you wanted/needed that second chance? )
You don't have to 'dress' any part in life, I believe that you are you and the fact that others, jobs, and places make you dress to a "standard" is fucking stupid.
I believe that we all need to shut the fuck up, and start working toward a better future. 



:|


----------



## zachhart12 (Feb 12, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> -Man created 'God' in his own likeness.



<3


----------



## The Lone Gamer151 (Feb 12, 2012)

A-Fucking-men.


----------



## Flarei (Feb 12, 2012)

I believe every human should be removed from this planet. Or Atleast in concentrated cities deep underground. And that they should have no hand in nature other to save it from other sentient creatures. (By sentient, I mean sentient to our degree.) And should only be allowed to access the surface to send people to space stations orbiting the planet that keep an eye on its health. Wanna ruin some rock? Go mine the moon or Mars, a planet with life shouldn't be raped to this degree all for a species that turns what it touches to death and rot.

Yeah, that's right. I'm a futurist, Greenist, Socialist, globalist, and an insane person.


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Feb 12, 2012)

I got all y'all beat with weird beliefs:: I think math is cool. Like hardcore endothermic awesome. 

You have my permission to start trembling now.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 12, 2012)

Metalmeerkat said:


> I got all y'all beat with weird beliefs:: I think math is cool. Like hardcore endothermic awesome.
> 
> You have my permission to start trembling now.


meh


----------



## Aleu (Feb 12, 2012)

Flarei said:


> I believe every human should be removed from this planet. Or Atleast in concentrated cities deep underground. And that they should have no hand in nature other to save it from other sentient creatures. (By sentient, I mean sentient to our degree.) And should only be allowed to access the surface to send people to space stations orbiting the planet that keep an eye on its health. Wanna ruin some rock? Go mine the moon or Mars, a planet with life shouldn't be raped to this degree all for a species that turns what it touches to death and rot.
> 
> Yeah, that's right. I'm a futurist, Greenist, Socialist, globalist, and an insane person.



You do realize that we are a part of nature and we'd never survive in these supposed underground cities, right?


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Feb 12, 2012)

Aha, I already have broken one person's mind already; he can't even form whole words!

What atrocity should I commit next? Dare I say it? I liked . . . _St. Anger_. I would say I like Nickleback, but even I am not that demented. 

gah, ninja'd.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 12, 2012)

Metalmeerkat said:


> I got all y'all beat with weird beliefs:: I think math is cool. Like hardcore endothermic awesome.
> 
> You have my permission to start trembling now.


I'd agree with you. I never got very far (not very relevant to any of my career paths), but learning the theories and how they fit together was pretty fun.

Let's be nerd friends.


----------



## Deo (Feb 12, 2012)

I believe that the Torah, the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Qur'an are some of the world's best fanfiction.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 12, 2012)

Deo said:


> I believe that the Torah, the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Qur'an are some of the world's best fanfiction.



doesn't fanfiction imply there is a canon?
Also HAI DEO long time no see.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 12, 2012)

Semisar said:


> Look at the name of the thread. I'm not going to justify my beliefs here.



I can't make you try, but your beliefs really are pretty much a direct contradiction in terms. Your saying that you hate social conservatives but support the most extremist social conservative views out there. 

You also said you approve of any action taken against social conservatives, soooooo...


----------



## Attaman (Feb 12, 2012)

Flarei said:


> *I believe every human should be removed from this planet. Or Atleast in concentrated cities deep underground. And that they should have no hand in nature other to save it from other sentient creatures.(By sentient, I mean sentient to our degree.) And should only be allowed to access the surface to send people to space stations orbiting the planet that keep an eye on its health. Wanna ruin some rock? Go mine the moon or Mars, a planet with life shouldn't be raped to this degree all for a species that turns what it touches to death and rot.
> 
> Yeah, that's right.* I'm *a futurist, Greenist, Socialist, globalist, and* an insane person.


 Sorry, your cat must have jumped on your keyboard. I bolded all the gibberish that can be deleted for you, if it helps.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 12, 2012)

Deo said:


> I believe that the Torah, the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Qur'an are some of the world's best fanfiction.



You have not read "A Diamond Sky Over the Titanic" then.
I have never cried so much over fanfiction ;~;


----------



## Ariosto (Feb 12, 2012)

Fay V said:


> doesn't fanfiction imply there is a *canon*?
> Also HAI DEO long time no see.



In this case, oral tradition? Perhaps?

EDIT: Not like oral tradition is stable in itself. So... fanfictions of fanfictions?


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 12, 2012)

I don't usually do the whole "smug-ass atheist" thing, but this is canon. :v


----------



## Bliss (Feb 12, 2012)

I believe Finland's official language should should be Finnish.


----------



## Flarei (Feb 13, 2012)

I think my thoughts are the most appaling.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 13, 2012)

Flarei said:


> I think my thoughts are the most appaling.


Nah, just a bit exasperating.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 13, 2012)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> In this case, oral tradition? Perhaps?
> 
> EDIT: Not like oral tradition is stable in itself. So... fanfictions of fanfictions?



Actually...come to think of it yeah. Fanfictions of fiction. If you consider the way the myths of ancient greece were adapted to roman mythology then on to the stories of the bible. fanfictions of fanfictions of fanfictions. 

Funny thing is I do believe they were some of the greatest literary works of all time, or at least parts. The J writer (I think it is) in the old testament has had a huge impact on literature and you can easily trace the influence back. 
It's a pity not enough people are willing to read the bible as a work of literary art and study it as such.


----------



## Neuron (Feb 13, 2012)

I believe that no matter your religion, you should take a dedication to studying all beliefs and understanding them. This idea isn't really all that offensive to you guys, I realize, but when I tried to tell this Christian I know that I think it would be prudent for everyone to study and understand at least a little about world religions he told me that all the other world religions weren't actually religions because Christianity is the only religion.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 13, 2012)

Lacus said:


> I believe that no matter your religion, you should take a dedication to studying all beliefs and understanding them. This idea isn't really all that offensive to you guys, I realize, but when I tried to tell this Christian I know that I think it would be prudent for everyone to study and understand at least a little about world religions he told me that all the other world religions weren't actually religions because Christianity is the only religion.


I hate that attitude so much. Just blowing off major beliefs and not even attempting to understand the ideas or people behind it. 
And yes I feel that way for all religions or atheists.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 13, 2012)

How can we have no hand in nature unless we kill ourselves? We are nature, so everything we ever do is an act of nature.


----------



## Ariosto (Feb 13, 2012)

Fay V said:


> Funny thing is I do believe they were some of the greatest literary works of all time, or at least parts. The J writer (I think it is) in the old testament has had a huge impact on literature and you can easily trace the influence back.
> It's a pity not enough people are willing to read the bible as a work of literary art and study it as such.



I've been meaning to do that for a long time (there's even a course at my college with THAT precise focus), but I never do it, kind of like that classic movie you know is great and all but never get to actually see. 
That said, I'm a firm defender of religion's legacy to the visual arts (not only by providing motiffs, but also by promoting artists), and it'd be really interesting to see what the Bible has left for literature.


----------



## wolfyexeteir (Feb 13, 2012)

Things that other people may find appalling.... I'm neutral on the My Little Pony case, the fact that I approve of the death penalty on murderers, I find the strangest people cute. Aaand now I wait to be flamed.


----------



## Bleedswhitefire (Feb 13, 2012)

I believe that goin down the road and hiting a doe then stoping, throwing her in the back of the truck, then goin down the road a little further and hiting a fawn (aka bambi) and throwing it in the back also and goin to the house is what I cal fast, pretenderised, food, is a fun thing. Also, when you go to take a shit, that is the best time to read because it makes the time past a lot faster.


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Feb 13, 2012)

Flarei said:


> I believe every human should be removed from this planet. Or Atleast in concentrated cities deep underground. And that they should have no hand in nature other to save it from other sentient creatures. (By sentient, I mean sentient to our degree.) And should only be allowed to access the surface to send people to space stations orbiting the planet that keep an eye on its health. Wanna ruin some rock? Go mine the moon or Mars, a planet with life shouldn't be raped to this degree all for a species that turns what it touches to death and rot.
> 
> Yeah, that's right. I'm a futurist, Greenist, Socialist, globalist, and an insane person.



Socialist Green Global Conspiracy is go!


----------



## Ames (Feb 13, 2012)

I believe that cars are more than just a means of transportation.

Just like how some people believe that clothes are more than just pieces of cloth that cover your crotch and tits.


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Feb 13, 2012)

JamesB said:


> I believe that cars are more than just a means of transportation.
> 
> Just like how some people believe that clothes are more than just pieces of cloth that cover your crotch and tits.



cars = power = freedom.   at least that's what most believe. Till them any difference, and they cry you are trying to take away their cars and freedom


----------



## Semisar (Feb 14, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> I can't make you try, but your beliefs really are pretty much a direct contradiction in terms. Your saying that you hate social conservatives but support the most extremist social conservative views out there.



Yes, and I won't even try to justify that. It isn't worth it. Either you believe parenting is a fundamental human right, or you don't, but trying to get people to change their view on it isn't worth it.



Unsilenced said:


> You also said you approve of any action taken against social conservatives, soooooo...



I didn't say I approved of any action, but that any action could be justified. Whether or not I agree with any particular action carried out due to the justification is another matter. Though I would approve as far as sending them to same sex colonies/compounds/communities where they can't spread their ignorance, or create and raise more dangerous sub-humans, and where their lack of thinking and reasoning ability would be treated as a form of insanity or mental disorder.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 14, 2012)

Social conservatism doesn't just mean "opposes gay marriage." Opposing gay marriage is a socially conservative viewpoint that is currently under a lot of debate, but that's not what social conservatism means. Social conservatism generally means a belief that the government should impose moral values outside of basic "don't kill don't steal" type laws. This can include ideas such as euthanasia and control of voting rights. Euthanasia in the United States was billed largely as a way to make sure we could have better kids with more stable families and good, wholesome values. Sound familiar? 

My issue isn't that you disagree with social conservatives; I disagree with social conservatives. My problem is that you ALSO ARE ONE. 

IT DOES NOT BLEND.

EDIT: What if I want to marry a social conservative and have children? Your stated beliefs are that I shouldn't be allowed to do that. Where are your fundamental human rights now?


----------



## Tha_Pig (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe it is bad to believe.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 14, 2012)

I would believe the Holocaust was just karmic backlash against the Jews for their Zionist arrogance....*if* I believed in karma


----------



## triage (Feb 14, 2012)

i believe that _those fuckers

our shit_


----------



## Dragonfurry (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe that every republic candidate is "evil" and that America is screwed.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 14, 2012)

triage said:


> i believe that _those fuckers
> 
> our shit_


fuck you

got mine


----------



## thewall (Feb 14, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I would believe the Holocaust was just karmic backlash against the Jews for their Zionist arrogance....*if* I believed in karma



I believe Kit is a covert neo-nazi skinhead.  Leave the Jews alone, for fucks sake.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> I believe scientology should be made illegal and labeled a cult, regardless of what the ECHR says.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While that is all true, to imply the Jews in any way _deserved_ the Holocaust is so beyond the pale that there are no words to adequately describe it.


----------



## Dreaming (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe that some issues aren't worth the energy that is required to debate them. It's far easier to just sit and watch other debate them.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> That's wasn't my point all.  I've never stated anything negative about the Jewish faith/culture, it was a wording failure on my part.
> 
> No one should deserve to be eradicated from the Earth, for some stupid bullshit reason like religion, creed, or sexuality.  The thought of people, who view the Holocaust as a positive thing; most likely need therapeutic help and a good history lesson.  My point was that the modern dislikeness of Jews, stems from their nation's attitude.  At least that's how it is over here.
> 
> If I'm still coming off wrong, I'll just delete the posts.



The post you were responding to was in itself a response to Kit's post above, which caused it to look like you were defending Kit's post.  I'm glad to see it was a misunderstanding, sorry for my part in it.


----------



## oliverrook (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe that "sentience" is just something humans made up to make themselves look better.
I believe that money is a stupid creation, and that we'd be so much better off without it.
I believe that something must have created reality, but might have since faded, or might have moved on.
I believe in the big bang.
I believe that there are an infinity of universes, and that they might actually be fantasy universes, such as having physics and logic that would be impossible in this one.
I believe that the soul is free to do what ever it wants, but just prefers to stay in a body.
I believe in reincarnation.
The soul is made of energy.
I believe that people should have to earn respect, no matter what rank, position, age, or other they have.
I believe that life creating other life via technology is perfectly fine and moral.
I believe that altering ones self via technology is also moral.
And that's all I can thing of so far.


----------



## Aetius (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe that Socialist and left wing governments tend to be fun killers.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 14, 2012)

Lobar said:


> The post you were responding to was in itself a response to Kit's post above, which caused it to look like you were defending Kit's post.  I'm glad to see it was a misunderstanding, sorry for my part in it.


I said I _didn't _believe in karma.


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe that if you go sufficiently far back into *anybody's* family tree, you'll find a bunch of people that did some serious messed up things. So if there were karma of entire peoples, it must be an asteroid with our name on it.


----------



## Shalla_Shadowfang (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe that porn is awesome, children are dumb, and god created evolution.On top of that I also believe that all hobos are really Russian spies who don't know that the Cold War is over.On a serious note: I believe that I don't trust religion to fix anything. An afterlife would be awesome but if everyone else's religion is the wrong one then how can you be sure that yours is right? By killing off all the opposition? Sounds stupid to me.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I said I _didn't _believe in karma.



Which doesn't negate the inherent assertion from your post that Zionism justifies the Holocaust, it only states you don't believe there was a direct cause and effect relationship between the two via a supernatural agent.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe that this thread has turned into a "i'm going to say random beliefs to get people to agree with me so I feel better about myself" kind of thread now.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I believe that this thread has turned into a "i'm going to say random beliefs to get people to agree with me so I feel better about myself" kind of thread now.



plus one holocaust apologist


----------



## NerdyMunk (Feb 14, 2012)

I think I'm hysterical with the jokes I make with myself.


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe in natural selection. Nature weeds out stupid


----------



## Bleedswhitefire (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe that if it ain't fun, it ain't worth it.


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Feb 14, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I believe that this thread has turned into a "i'm going to say random beliefs to get people to agree with me so I feel better about myself" kind of thread now.



I believe the internet is not your friend


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2012)

Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot said:


> I believe the internet is not your friend



I believe that people don't understand reading comprehension anymore.


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Feb 14, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I believe that people don't understand reading comprehension anymore.



or the use of grammar, capitalization or spelling. Damn spell check 

Haha disregard that


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2012)

Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot said:


> or the use of grammar, capitalization, or spelling. Damn spell check
> 
> Haha disregard that



or the oxford comma :V


----------



## Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot (Feb 14, 2012)

Aleu said:


> or the oxford comma :V


I believe there are arguments for and against the use of the serial comma.


----------



## Tha_Pig (Feb 15, 2012)

I believe faith is the worst thing that can poison human mind, and the cause of practically every problem that plagues the world.

And I said FAITH, not RELIGION. Religion is just one of the consequences One of the side effects. 
The real poison is faith. Faith is the ability to lie to yourself and believe it. Faith is the ability to put aside logic and reason and force yourself to accept an idea deep inside you should know it's not true. Faith is the main forced behind millions of people voluntarily becoming mindless robots on the service of a church, or a party, or a gang... Faith is the force behind the majority of mankind choosing herd mentality instead of individuality and self reliance.

If I believed in such things as "good" and "evil" I would say faith is the ultimate form of evil.


----------



## Semisar (Feb 15, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> IT DOES NOT BLEND.



I know, that's why it's posted in THIS thread. *THINGS YOU BELIEVE THAT WOULD APPALL OTHERS *see how well this fits here?


Unsilenced said:


> EDIT: What if I want to marry a social conservative and have children? Your stated beliefs are that I shouldn't be allowed to do that. Where are your fundamental human rights now?



Well, since I think eugenics is a good idea then I don't think parenting is a fundamental human right so much as it is a privilege and responsibility. So yeah, I'm not looking for them anywhere.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 15, 2012)

Semisar said:


> Either you believe parenting is a fundamental human  right, or you don't.





Semisar said:


> I don't think parenting is a fundamental human right.





Semisar said:


> I regard social conservatives as less human due to their inferior critical thinking skills



Q.E.D


----------



## Semisar (Feb 15, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> Q.E.D



I can't and won't argue with you. My opinion is not fact, but merely opinion. On a side note, I looked at your signature more closely and realised that you didn't just have 41 users following you around agreeing with every post you made. You can now laugh at me further.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 15, 2012)

Semisar said:


> I can't and won't argue with you. My opinion is not fact, but merely opinion.



You still don't seem to get that my problem isn't with your beliefs being _wrong,_ but more with the fact that, in the terms you defined them in, they contradict each other heavily. You can believe whatever you want, but if you go around saying that you hate a group you belong to, you aren't going to get very far. Your beliefs aren't appalling, they're just really fucking confusing. 



> On a side note, I looked at your signature more closely and realised that you didn't just have 41 users following you around agreeing with every post you made. You can now laugh at me further.



It's my portable credibility. Never leave home without it.


----------



## Semisar (Feb 15, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> Your beliefs aren't appalling, they're just really fucking confusing.



Sorry about that, but beliefs don't need to make sense, and can be totally contradicting sometimes. I'll just assume you have a basic understanding of Christianity, so you should already know that beliefs don't need to make any sense at all and can be as contradictory as the believer wants them to be. It's not really worth trying to make sense of that, because it doesn't really make a whole lot. Just take it as it is. Also, some people would think that what I said is appalling, depends who you ask.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 15, 2012)

While beliefs can have exceptions or minor uncertainties, the more they have the weaker they become. You can say "thou shalt not kill" and then think of exceptions when you can kill, but if you say you hate everyone who kills whilst routinely slaughtering scores of people, your beliefs will not hold up. 

Your beliefs stated in your first post could actually be "fixed" with some editing. Instead you could state them as:

-I believe in eugenics.
-I believe in same sex marriage and abortion rights. (I'm assuming that when you said "social conservative," you meant "pro-life and anti-same sex marriage.") 
-I believe that those who do not share my beliefs on same sex marriage and abortion are a danger to society. 

By leaving out the phrase "social conservative," which applies to you, you avoid telling people that you are a subhuman and that you despise yourself. Your beliefs will still be irrational, immature, and narrow minded, but at least people will understand what you're trying to say.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 15, 2012)

Semisar said:


> Well, since I think eugenics is a good idea then I don't think parenting is a fundamental human right so much as it is a privilege and responsibility. So yeah, I'm not looking for them anywhere.


Personally, as a would-be cull under your proposed eugenics plan, one of my biggest complaints would be with government invading my bodily autonomy by forcing me to have a surgery or to be chemically castrated. (Chemical castration has awful side effects; it might have even contributed to Alan Turing's suicide after he was castrated for being "disabled," [oh, 1940's Britain--wait, you thought this idea wasn't archaic?] which is really a damn shame given that he was a genius cryptanalyst and paved the way to the modern computer and AI and could have continued making these amazing contributions to for another few decades at least. Oh ableism, you are so worthless and regressive and blind to individual human potential.) Or killing my kids or killing me or whatever. That's some super-fascism right there, holy shit.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Feb 15, 2012)

I believe that every statement including this one is hypocritical in some way.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 15, 2012)

It is unfortunate that a few bad historical examples will tarnish the image of genetic medicine forever. Watching well-meaning progressives wring their hands over a vital technology for the future of our species is like watching luddites in the late 1800s complain about the dangers of electricity.

Or like watching well-meaning people in the 1970s and 80s wring their hands about nuclear power... meanwhile fossil fuels continue to irreparably poison our planet's atmosphere.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 15, 2012)

Spatel said:


> It is unfortunate that a few bad historical examples will tarnish the image of genetic medicine forever. Watching well-meaning progressives wring their hands over a vital technology for the future of our species is like watching luddites in the late 1800s complain about the dangers of electricity.
> 
> Or like watching well-meaning people in the 1970s and 80s wring their hands about nuclear power... meanwhile fossil fuels continue to irreparably poison our planet's atmosphere.


You yourself told me straight-up that you could see there being gene therapy for my disease in 50-100 years; sure enough we have already seen some successful gene therapy treatments for a few other disorders such as retinal degenerative disease in dogs. Why do we have to kill or sterilize anyone when gene and stem cell therapy right around the corner? Furthermore, my particular disorder will be pretty much irrelevant once this gets another decade or two of development, I'll just have to be careful about surgeries.


----------



## Aetius (Feb 15, 2012)

Hipsters and college hippies need a mandatory bi-weekly beating.


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Feb 15, 2012)

You really think they get high only twice a week?


----------



## Attaman (Feb 15, 2012)

Blutide said:


> Give people a second chance, people do Change. ( Hard concept? Get your head out of your ass, what if you wanted/needed that second chance? )


Hm, why does this seem off..


Blutide said:


> Is cancer useful? The earth would be better off without us. Not being dark, its just the truth.



Oh, that's why. Well, I guess it's okay t-



Blutide said:


> People that don't stick to what they believe and flip flop all the time need to be burned.


Ooh. Oh. Ouch, sorry Blutide. I'm going to need to break out the torches and pitchforks here.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 15, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> I believe that every statement including this one is hypocritical in some way.



A statement can only be hypocritical it involves a judgement on the part of the speaker. I can state that one plus two equals three, and since there's no judgement, hypocrisy is impossible. 

What you might mean to say is that every statement, including this one, has uncertainty.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Feb 15, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> A statement can only be hypocritical it involves a judgement on the part of the speaker. I can state that one plus two equals three, and since there's no judgement, hypocrisy is impossible.
> 
> What you might mean to say is that every statement, including this one, has uncertainty.



Ah thanks on that! I though there was something wrong with my statement.


----------



## Semisar (Feb 15, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> While beliefs can have exceptions or minor uncertainties, the more they have the weaker they become. You can say "thou shalt not kill" and then think of exceptions when you can kill, but if you say you hate everyone who kills whilst routinely slaughtering scores of people, your beliefs will not hold up.
> 
> Your beliefs stated in your first post could actually be "fixed" with some editing. Instead you could state them as:
> 
> ...



Works for me. That makes me happy, and hopefully it makes you happy.


----------

