Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

Don't treat it like a comprehensive list. I am not an attorney and I am not offering legal council. However I will offer a rule of thumb; If it was actual people instead of drawings would the average person find it "obscene"? If yes, stay away from it and err on the side of caution with your decisions. †‹

It's been a year to merely express my condolences for Waar passing away. Before that it had been several years. I was one of the first members when Fakku was created before a rogue admin trashed the website forcing Jacob rebooted it. I've been a member for 11 years apparently (according to a message I got when I logged in due to nostalgia).

I remember a lot of my time was spent in Serious Discussion stirring up debate with anyone who disagreed with me for the sake of testing my philosophies, beliefs, etc against the arguments of other users. It was pretty much my subforum, my home and rarely did I venture out from it's confines.

I remember when Waar started the Waifu Game and the rabid debates on whose waifu was trash (the answer is yours btw). When Klown (I think it was him) created a video as a shout out to all the well known Fakkuza at the time. Lots of drama between a handful of users trolling each other while the community laughed and played along like a rowdy crowd at a convention. I remember when Jacob sent me money because my cat Leo was dying and I was too broke to afford a vet. I dated a community member for a number of years. She moved from her home state to go to school down here and moved in with me. Long story short, it didn't work out between us and I assume she's doing alright now with her husband. I couldn't be happier for her.

I remember when the mascot Momoka was first rolled out to mixed opinions, the first fan translations of doujins were uploaded to Fakku from certain groups I don't think I can actually list. When the first books were published. I'm so old here I remember when Lolicon and Shotacon were still on the site.

Most importantly I remember the friends I made here. Some I haven't spoken to in years and some I still talk wish to this very day.

Sounds more like a serious discussion topic than a Random one.

Short Version: Lolicon, Shotacon, Toddlercon, Rape, Guro, Beastiality, violent acts (brain/eye/skull fucking), and material along those lines are not legal in Scotland. Here's some snippets from some legal sources I have access to and tried to give you the exact name of the law and amendments I could find to said law. I hope this helps.

Relevant laws in Scotland would be Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 provides for a new offence criminalising the the possession of extreme pornographic material.

The new offence, which is contained at section 42 of the Act, criminalises the possession of obscene, pornographic images which explicitly and realistically depict:

an act which takes or threatens a person's life
an act which results or is likely to result in a person's severe injury
rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity
Sexual activity involving (directly or indirectly) a human corpse
An act which involves sexual activity between a person and an animal (or the carcase of an animal)

In Scotland, extreme pornography is defined by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. The definition is similar to that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but also includes “an act which takes or threatens a person’s life” and “rape or other non-consensual penetrative activity”.

The law covers images whether they are moving or still images.

The Protection of Children Act 1978 with the Criminal Justice Act 1988 make it an offence for anyone to take, allow to be taken, possess, show, distribute or publish any indecent image of a child. A child is defined as anyone aged under 18 for the purposes of these Acts.

Child pornography is illegal ("child" is defined as a person under 18) to possess, produce (in terms of electronic copies), or to distribute, and is punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment. In England and Wales, the law on this type of material is strictly defined by the Protection of Children Act 1978, Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, further amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to include pseudo-photographs, and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which raised the age for appearing in pornographic material from 16 to 18 (while the age of consent in the UK remains 16). Sale of pornography is restricted to adults. In Scotland, similar provisions are to be found in sections 52 and 52A of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which was also amended by the 1994 Act and by the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005.

We rarely got along but I'm sorry to hear you're gone. I'll pour a shot of my good whiskey for you tonight. Rest in peace.

From the opposing standpoint, once a fertilized egg attaches to the uterus it's human. Albeit an early stage of human but, given enough time it will develop. As conservatives here would say; it has the potential for life.



So a pregnancy must make it past the 2/3rds (average 38 weeks) mark before you accept the fetus as a human being? Seems arbitrary since development isn't a mechanical process. Pretty much everything involving pregnancy involves a window of some variety.




How does the partner force a miscarriage exactly? Like i said earlier, it should be illegal for other people to force a woman to have a child against their will. It should also be illegal for other people to force a woman not to have a child against their will.[/quote]

Certain over the counter medicines (NSAID's: non steroidal anti inflammatory agents) have been linked to an increased chance of miscarriage. These include Diclofenac, Naproxen (Aleve), Celecoxib (Celebrex), Ibuprofen (Advil). Even simple violence like blows to the abdomen are ways for cause a miscarriage. Another albeit less scientific approach is a spike in Vitamin C intake each hour as well as ingesting blue and black Cohosh can lead to miscarriages but, I am unable to confirm these last two.




We certainly agree here. Unfortunately, in my country you can be on the hook for child supports without being the biological father. Yes, women's rights in my country have gone so far into the bleachers that any male that takes a "fatherly" role in the child's life can potentially be on the hook for child support. There have been a few cases where male babysitters were sued for child support because they "took a fatherly role" in the child's life.

You speak of established rights and ignore the rights of the other human involved. The other cornerstone of the abortion debate is when/where do our rights kick in. So far, only the conservatives have offered a concrete point and that's when conception happens. The liberals in this country run the gambit from, brain activity (6 weeks), heartbeat (aprox. 10 weeks), organ precursors/Quickening (8 weeks), all the way to the point of the fetus/baby is not protected until it's delivered via c-section or through the birth canal. This scattered stance weakens their argument.

I'm curious as to how you feel on not charging a person that murders a pregnant woman with double homicide instead of the standard homicide. If this fetus doesn't count as a person, doesn't this seem inconsistent with your views? What about the woman wanting to carry the fetus to term and their partner (male or female) doesn't want a child and forces a miscarriage? Is this murder or battery?

For the record; I'm an Atheist and don't give a shit either way on abortion. I'm simply stoking debate here.

Here is the core issue wrapped up in a tidy bow. There is no "right" option when it comes to abortion. Either the woman carries it to term and the fetus lives or you kill the fetus to prevent the woman from suffering. Regardless of which side of the line you fall on, somebody is forced to give up something.

It really comes down to which you value more the life of the fetus or the woman's suffering.

Adversity builds character and is a catalyst for change. I also remember you, though you are permanently associated with the dapper picture of Snivy (and the color green) in my head.

Hello, my name is Fiery_Penguin_of_Doom aka "FPoD". Former resident of Serious Discussion and sole voice of libertarian-esq views. I joined Fakku back in late 2007 or early 2008. I do remember signing up around the time Fakku was being promoted on 4chan. Then for some reason the server was wiped or I simply forgot to actually create an account. I digress, I was a frequent user between 2007/8 until approximately 2010/11. I even met a user on Fakku by the name of Brittany formerly ZiggyOtaku/Ziggy and in May of 2009 we moved in together (Wiki). Unfortunately, we broke up in 2012/13 putting an end to that chapter of Fakkuza history. During our time together, we became involved in several political campaigns ranging from local elections to even national ones. Due to the corruption involved in politics at every level I became depressed and disillusioned with politics in general. I partially attribute the decline in my relationship with Brittany to that depression.

Over these last 7 years I've attempted to enlist with the USMC after the death of my mother and collapse of my business during the great recession. Fate has impeccable timing as those two tragedies happened Thanksgiving day. I have also had two failed relationships, one being a canceled engagement to Brittany and subsequent nasty, repugnant breakup with her. I struggled with the aforementioned depression until recently.

Currently, I'm a manager for a fortune 500 company, I play a lot of DoTA, and working on buying a house next year and starting my own business again.

P.S. Not quite the wall of text people expect from me.

This hardly seems worthy of hatred or contempt. You were fooling around and accidentally hurt someone. Worthy of anger? Yes but not contempt.

My story; In high school I dated a woman my sophomore year (2001) through early 2007 shortly before I joined fakku. During my relationship with this woman I cheated on her with several naive girls by taking advantage of the bragging my girlfriend did about my sexual prowess (in highschool the bar isn't that high). The worst of these offenses was when I took advantage of a girl named Sarah/Sara. This girl was infatuated with me and I used her to get off. I've never really forgave myself for that one as I devastated this girl and left her emotionally unable to cope with her mothers death soon after. She dropped out of school her sophomore year and kind of fell off the radar for years until I saw her going into a bank in the small town we lived in.

So that's my story worthy of contempt. Beat myself up about it for a number of years since it happened.

Carrying a weapon, regardless of what it is, whether it's a bat, mace, T.A.S.E.R., handgun, knife, etc. The threat of harm or injury from a weapon is a deterrent for violence against the user. The act of killing someone with a firearm or any weapon has to be a decision made by the user of that weapon.

I have actually used the implied threat that I was carrying a concealed weapon to deter an aggressive individual. I had an irate man threaten me in a public place. To clarify, he wasn't just talking trash, he was physically aggressive (pushing), verbally abusive (racial/sexual epithets) and had all the signs that he wanted to beat the life out of me. I reached my hand behind my back knowing that if it came to a straight up fight, my much larger and significantly more muscular opponent would probably throw me around like a rag doll. The moment he saw my hand move as if I was reaching for a concealed weapon, his demeanor and expression changed. He immediately backed down by putting his hands up, backed away several steps, apologized for losing his temper and walked away. While this is anecdotal evidence at best it still serves as fuel for my argument.



We don't live in this theoretical world so I choose not to deal in such theories. We need to deal in reality.

Guns exist to deter violence against the wielder as well. Whether the weapon kills depends on the conscious or panicked decisions of the wielder. Police often shoot a suspect in the leg, unless they are reckless mavericks who think a man with an IKEA knife needs 22 rounds in their chest.



So, you're implying by banning firearms, then deranged, angry and otherwise disturbed individuals would vanish into thin air? No, that is nonsense, mentally unstable, anger-prone, psychotic, etc people will still exist. The Akihabara massacre alone nullifies this childish daydream. In Japan, handguns are absolutely forbidden. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

Japanese Gun Control Study

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

So, if banning weapons would be a panacea for our societies ills, then how do you explain Tomohiro Katō the man responsible for the Akihabara massacre or the a stabbing spree in Tsuchiura?

Only fools and dead men don’t change their minds. Fools won’t. Dead men can’t.
-- John Henry Patterson

Since you strongly believe that only the Government should be allowed to arm themselves. Shall we take a trip through last century?

Rwanda: 1994 - 800,000 Deaths: The akazu, a circle of relatives and close friends of then Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana planned to purge the minority Tutsi from Rwanda. Perpetrators came from the ranks of the Rwandan army, the National Police (gendarmerie), government-backed militias including the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi, and the Hutu civilian population.

Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000 Deaths: The Ottoman Empire systematically exterminated the Armenian minority as well as the Assyrian and Greek minorities.

Pol Pot in Cambodia: 1975-1979 - 2,000,000 Deaths: Khmer Rouge overthrew the government of Cambodia in 1975, and established a Communist “utopia” in its place, its first act was to annihilate anyone it deemed to be an “enemy of the state”.

al-Anfal Campaign February 23, 1988 – September 6, 1988 182,000 Deaths

Halabja chemical attack in Iraq March 16, 1988 5,000 Deaths

Those doesn't even cover the forced starvations that occured under the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China between 1929 and 1976

What do all of these have in common? These were governments killing their own people. In the first five examples, the government is actively killing people while in the during the farming reforms in China and Russia the deaths were the result of "sacrifices for the workers utopia".

If you don't trust people with weapons, how can you trust a government when those same people you don't trust with said weapons make up that government that you do trust?

The argument was pointing out how arbitrary the "potential damages" argument is.

Everytime you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle you can potentially cause property damage or kill someone.

Every time you plug in an electrical appliance you could potentially electricute someone or cause a fire.

"Potential" is not the same as actually causing damages. Once actual damage has been caused the person who created those damages owes their victim compensation for this damages.

There is really an arbitrary difference if I walk between some white lines and if I *Gasp* walked 5 inches or 5 feet outside those lines.

Cutting off half of the argument you're criticizing then calling it flawed isn't a good way to start your own argument.

Oh and I did not explictly say drivers so you took the liberty to put words in my mouth to further justify your own argument. That's a bad sign when you have to distort your opponent to make a point.

Care to try again?

Unfair? Using subjective terms for the basis of your argument is disengenous at best. You can keep redefining the definition of what is "unfair" to suit your argument and frustrate your opponent. It makes you seem like a whiny child when you use "unfair" are part of an argument. If that's the best you can do, quit wasting my time. I also find it amusing for you calling transitive law "irrational" when it's a cornerstone of mathematics and logic.

Back to paying taxes:

If I broke into your home and robbed you with the intent of selling the property I stole for money. Is this wrong? The general concensus would be yes because we're all taught it's wrong to steal. The concept of private property is a cornerstone of western law.

If I was to change the scenario a little bit, what if I broke into your house, etc but, the money I made from selling the stolen goods was meant to pay for my cancer treatment? Is it still wrong? What if it was to pay for a child's cancer treatment? To feed the homeless? To fund a feminists campaign against domestic violence around the world? To donate to N.P.R? What about a campaign to feed starving Africans?

The point is this; stealing from someone regardless of how "noble" the intentions is still theft and it's wrong from a modern moral and ethical standpoint. Yet, when governments committ such actions, it's considered justified. Why the arbitrary distinction? I am unsure.

Now, for your scenario; If I jaywalked who have I hurt? Nobody, I endangered myself but, isn't that my right if I own myself? I should be permitted to make decisions relative to my body if I'm not hurting another person? Same argument pro-choice people make for abortion "My body, my choice".

You could argue that I endangered others by creating a situtation where other people could be killed and cause tens of thousands of dollars in property damages. Can you really justify a penalty for the potential threat of causing harm? If so, then how can anyone get behind the wheel of a vehicle since that causes a severe increase in potential dangers for others.

Such arbitary distinctions have lead countries to be inundated with asinine laws like the U.S's ban of the sale of raw milk or the ban on "Kinder Surprise" with the potential fine per egg quoted as high as US$2,500.

Your assumption is close but, not quite correct. For organizations such as police and fire services I believe volunteers will be perfectly suited to the task. The area I work for my route is 80% volunteer fire departments and 20% government operated fire departments. In other words I believe the "private sector" (which includes more than just businesses) would suffice and promote more of a solidarity within the community. This could be anything from a non-profit volunteer organization, to a communal program, contracting or even the use of a business.

I like how you immediately assume the worst of human nature and yet, promote government as if by simply being government it somehow absolves people of their worst behaviors.

If people can't be trusted, why do you trust them with governmental authority?



Florida, New jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, California, Oklahoma and a few others already have a large number of toll roads. Florida is particularly bad around central Florida (Orlando) where every major route is a minefield of toll booths. Also, considering you're not from the U.S. you may not know this but, every time a person buys a gallon of Petrol or Diesel they are paying a tax which is used to pay for the construction and maintenance of the roads. So in effect, the government already has tens of thousands of toll booths along every stretch of road in the country, they're just in the shape of gas stations.

Though, this tax/toll is levied onto people who do not use the petrol or diesel in their vehicles (lawn mowers, generators, etc).



Paved roads are indeed expensive but, not every road needs to be paved. I have stretches of my route that are unpaved and are either dirt roads or simple gravel roads.



In some areas, like roads, where government has had control for a very long time, we often can’t imagine good free market solutions. We fall into the trap of “I can’t think of how the market would solve this, which must mean that the market *can’t* solve this.” Rather arrogant of us, eh, to think that we know what the market can and cannot do?

The market, of course, is more imaginative than we can ever be, since it is a composite of many minds, not just ours. The market has a great deal to “say” about roads, since most of them were private in the early days of the United States.

Yes, there were some toll roads back then, just as there would undoubtedly be today. However, most roads were built and maintained by those who lived beside them. The businesses, homes, and farms built them for their own use and that of their customers or visitors, dividing the cost between themselves. In a libertarian society, I suspect that most business highways would operate this way too. Why scare away customers with a toll?

In St. Louis, neighborhoods are taking back their roads. Over 1,000 streets have been deeded back to separate neighborhood associations which are formed for that purpose. Those living on the road charge visitors nothing, but do restrict travel by closing off the street or expelling vagrants. Needless to say, crime is much lower on these private streets. Condo communities operate similarly except that their roads are built privately and remain private.

The market seems to prefer “free” access to neighborhood roads and commercial highways, with costs borne by those living beside it. Most likely toll roads would be the choice for longer distances. Not only does this get rid of the monopoly problem, but it gets rid of the needed for stickers, electronic mileage trackers, etc. The market seems to have a better solution than libertarian futurists (myself included) would have predicted.

How is the market solution different from tax assessments for the roads built in front of our houses today? It’s truly optional! One neighbor might say, “I don’t want to pave our dirt road — I only use it once a month to get groceries. If those of you who use it twice a day want to pave it, go ahead, but don’t expect me to pay for it!” The neighbors will either 1) carry this neighbor as a free rider; 2) ask him to pitch in a smaller amount; 3) come to some other agreement. Because they are all neighbors, each has some incentive to be a little more giving in the negotiations than they might with strangers.




I know, European Statists have a special kind of naïveté, but it always baffles me how they expect any of this to work in the real world; the government isn't some magic cure-all for all the world's problems, as much as some people seem to think it is.



The point was, that you have a gun to your head when it comes to taxes. It's not voluntary, you don't have a choice in the matter (well you do but, it's a piss poor choice that doesn't really count). You don't want to pay for that blokes 27th brat that'll end up being a dim-witted Luddite who leeches of public services? Well too bad, cough up the quid or the bobbies will bash your skull in.



I didn't state where laws should come into affect. For a libertarian society, laws exist to protect the rights of an individual. A cornerstone of libertarian thought is the idea of property rights and that a person owns themselves. So all acts we consider universally illegal (Murder, rape, larceny, fraud, etc) can be argued as violations of the victims property rights.

Even Anarchists believe in "laws" in some form or another. If you want the Anarchist take on how society would work, I suggest you read some Kropotkin.




Until the creation of certain government programs, there were a lot more charitable organizations in the U.S but, the number dropped significantly when people start being lazy and kicking the can to the government. Why should I donate to a soup kitchen? The government gives needy people food stamps already. So on and so on. People also used to save more for their retirement before the creation of Social Security.

Government gives us an excuse to be lazy because we'll simply assume someone else will fix the problem.




You can always leave.

Yes it is, an intoxicated (Drunk, high) is not legally allowed to give valid consent. It's rape unless an argument for implied consent (legal definition) can be made.

An example of implied consent is a married couple who are intoxicated having sex.



Yes, it's rape because an unconscious person is unable to give valid consent.



Yes, sex without consent is rape.



You only fail to comprehend that while intoxicated, you can not legally give consent to anything. Even being under the influence of certain legal medications removes your ability to grant valid consent.



Nope because you were wrong on the first example.

That's consenting while sober which is a different set of circumstances than consenting while intoxicated. While intoxicated your ability to reason and make informed decisions is compromised. An intoxicated or otherwise impaired person can't grant valid consent for anything beyond implied consent which is based upon what society would find as the reasonable course of action.

If a person is drunk/high, they can verbally say they want to fuck you but, legally speaking, they can't consent because they are impaired. having sex with a drunk chick who said she wanted to fuck you is rape. Doesn't matter if she's trying to pull your dick out of your pants, she's drunk and can't consent to anything.



So, if I choose to drink beyond a certain amount, I'm responsible for the actions of others? That's some backwards logic there. Going to start blaming the corpse for their own murder next?

Criticize the person for consuming excessive amounts of alcohol or for attending a party/whatever without a buddy as back up protection but, don't blame the victim for the actions of another person.

The male had sex with an underage girl so;

The STD would have no influence on the case.

The "I thought/she told me she was 18" defense doesn't work anymore.

It is cut and dry that in the end, he would be found guilty of statutory rape and be sent to jail.