Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts
My advice for playing the waifu game is put a helmet on and keep your head down. Radioactive suits and bullet proof vests are a plus.
Renovartio wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
I dont understand why these people can see it as being ok to protest a funeral, being it for a soldier or not.It doesn't fit with their idea of what is right and wrong. Like most people, they find something offensive and think it should be outlawed.
well yeah I mean certain things should be outlawed, but not just because its offensive, well thats what i think. I mean things should only be outlawed or protests is if it violates someones rights or something.
not occults, the term is radical's...
The bold test is where we agree. They are allowed to say whatever they want as long as they don't violate the rights of the family or others.
The Constitution sets a protection of speech by any censorship by the government and by extension though the 9th amendment the state governments but, a business owner or your boss can tell you what you may or may not talk about on their property. Kind of puts a crimp in the "absolute" freedom of speech argument.
Depends on the property that they tag. If it's private property where the owner consented to the painting then it's fine. If it's private property and the owner of that property did not consent to having their property painted it's vandalism. Same goes for public property, it's vandalism and therefore they are criminals.
Aud1o Blood wrote...
And, on "alternative journals":
-Competition keeps the journalistic system from stagnating even further. The low quality and lack of accreditation of smaller publications is based on a monopolized marketplace, controlled by a dynasty based ruling class. These exclusive groups are free to decide what gets printed, and what does not.
-Corruption is cheap in this country. For a single game of golf, you can get entire laws changed to your liking.
-I'm one of the three who actually paid attention in Biology class, hence my position of compromise. AGAIN, I vaccinate for the essential ones, and leave the rest alone.
Don't even get me started on the corruption in the medical industry. Some of the creators of these vaccine won't take them because THEY DON'T THINK THEY ARE SAFE! It's bad enough the MSNBC did a special on the industry, granted it centered more on the pharmaceutical companies. If the creators of a vaccine won't take it because it's not safe, then why should I? Would you live in a house that the builder thinks is unsafe, of course not.
I take the vaccines that I know are safe and have plenty of evidence supporting how safe it is. I didn't get a h1n1 shot because the creators weren't taking it.
Worrying about death is futile. You will die. It's just a matter of when, why and how painfully.
Rather than worrying about dying why not worry about what you'll accomplish in life?
Upon death I believe there is nothing. No paradise, hell, purgatory or reincarnation. The lights go out and you become worm food.
Rather than worrying about dying why not worry about what you'll accomplish in life?
Upon death I believe there is nothing. No paradise, hell, purgatory or reincarnation. The lights go out and you become worm food.
Anomalouse wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Nothing wrong with not liking obnoxious people. Flamboyant gays tend to be rather obnoxious and loud like the gentlemen you spoke of who hung all over you.That was not me, I was quoting Akaoni21, who posted that at the bottom of page 2. Didn't you notice all the typographical and grammatical errors (which I'd like to think I avoid)?
My apologies. I was reading it while typing. All the brackets and such mislead me.
Chlor wrote...
iast wrote...
I don't want it legal because the quality of the weed will go down.You know, the quality of it will most likely improve, since you will be able to securely check where its from, and not buy mixed up, low quality crap from some douche who's growing half a dozen plants in his closet. It will be more expensive, but you'll at least get what you pay for.
You also left out that the product you buy will be safer (no lacing with meth or coke,etc).
I'm not sure if it'll get more expensive. Tobacco companies will latch onto it in a heart beat as it won't be taxed as heavily as tobacco plus they have the money to fund large hydroponic "farms". These companies will be able to produce large quantities of weed. Also several people will start up small businesses. I imagine it turning out like the alcohol industry. You'll have the major players and a lot of microbreweries. Though I find it difficult to see an aisle at the local grocery store stocked with weed.
Anomalouse wrote...
]I thought that was more of a myth...Still, there are people out there who are honestly creeped out by overly flamboyant homosexuals, and I think what I was getting at holds true for both of those groups anyway...
Nothing wrong with not liking obnoxious people. Flamboyant gays tend to be rather obnoxious and loud like the gentlemen you spoke of who hung all over you.
I was speaking more along the line of the people who irrationally hate gays (sans any religious doctrine). Those men are so deep in the closet their finding Christmas presents.
Anomalouse wrote...
That was a tangent, somewhat unrelated to what you had said. Now, let me explain why I think you shouldn't pick on homophobics:Even if homophobics (and I think homophobe is an accepted shorthand of the term) are in the moral wrong, it's not right to treat them with hostility. People can't help their fears, and homophobia comes down to fear of a concept that, while natural, still goes against the more common way of doing things.
Besides the fact that homosexuality is a little weird of a concept to begin with, gay culture likes to tack on a lot of bizarre, occasionally perverted, and usually really creepy imagery to it. I think a number of homophobics are reacting negatively to this and only this, and mistakenly think that it carries over to every gay person on the planet (it does not).
The University of Georgia did a study in th late 90's that concluded that homophobic men are closet gays. I don't have a link at the moment but, I do know it was published in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association. Also a Cornell University study found that some men who are homophobic are overcompensating due to their own insecurities about their own masculinity.
Edit: Found some links but, will look for actual study.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/08/02/12222.aspx
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/aug05/soc.gender.dea.html
Anomalouse wrote...
One last thing I want to say though, your ideas on political or religious contamination springing up in psychological screening... that's not how psychological testing works.If you're insinuating that a psych test will react poorly to certain political or ideological attitudes, it shouldn't. There are professionals across to globe who work to develop tests that won't.I agree, that is not how psychological screening works but, that is exactly how government works. Government officials will try to bend the test or appoint experts who lean their way. If they can't rig the test then they will throw out those tests and replace them with bias ones.
If you're insinuating that certain areas of the United States would use unfair testing methods, I'd like to think those are paranoid delusions, but I understand the concern.
I'd also like to believe these are paranoid delusions but, it's not true. I pay a lot of attention to politics and those involved and I know there is far too many self serving politicians and too much corruption for "ideal" systems to work. Politicians and their parties want votes. If they can use social engineering to tip the scale you can bet your ass they will do it as much as possible.
I will compromise and say that I'd be fine with screening out people with mental disorders like schizophrenia and similar illnesses but, how many mentally ill give birth?
Edit: I would need to know the specific criteria they would use in psychological screenings in order to more effectively argue for or against it.
Anomalouse wrote...
I disagree, there are at least a couple widely agreed-upon definitions of what makes a bad parent, and that's what examinations would try to prevent. Now, the criteria on what passes and fails is difficult to decide on, but I think with careful deliberation an acceptable test and programs to assist those who fail could be developed... but probably not in America, because we have enough trouble coordinating taxpayers' money as it is.I said a good parent, not a bad parent. As i said before, everybody has their own definitions for what counts as a good or bad parent. If you need me to elaborate just say so.
I think screening for income is a really good idea, the standards don't have to be strenuous, but yeah, I think people who are jobless should be obligated to put their child in a foster home or something.
Screening a baby for potential health problems, I dunno if you're talking about before pregnancy or during pregnancy. Before pregnancy I'm pretty sure is impossible, you can't test until the fetus begins to develop. During pregnancy, I'm pretty sure every responsible couple already consults a doctor, I dunno what the cost for that is, maybe it could be subsidized or something
Mental examination for the mother, no. Psychological profile of the parents maybe, but those tests are expensive and require specifically-trained professionals who aren't available everywhere. At that, psychological testing would have to be concerned with the parents' ability to raise children, not the offspring's potential for psychological disorders (how a child turns out mentally is a wild card, you can't test it ahead of time).
Screening a baby for potential health problems, I dunno if you're talking about before pregnancy or during pregnancy. Before pregnancy I'm pretty sure is impossible, you can't test until the fetus begins to develop. During pregnancy, I'm pretty sure every responsible couple already consults a doctor, I dunno what the cost for that is, maybe it could be subsidized or something
Mental examination for the mother, no. Psychological profile of the parents maybe, but those tests are expensive and require specifically-trained professionals who aren't available everywhere. At that, psychological testing would have to be concerned with the parents' ability to raise children, not the offspring's potential for psychological disorders (how a child turns out mentally is a wild card, you can't test it ahead of time).
Screening by income would institutionalize racist policies that unfairly target Blacks and Hispanics. As most poor people are either Black or Hispanic.
Screening for health issues; I'm talking about Eugenics. Where do we draw the line? Do we abort the autistic? What about physical disabilities? The list goes on.
I touch on why psychological screenings are a bad idea below.
Testing for political alignment or religion is retarded, I dunno where you're getting that from, there's no logical basis for any such test. There's as much proof that a god exists as there is proof a god does not exist; no theological mantra, INCLUDING ATHEISM, has any say in how valid another is, because not one is any more valid than the next.
Try telling Richard Dawkins or any other Atheist that they are wrong. Psychological testing can and will be used to screen out the religious by targeting their beliefs as "psychologically undesirable". Unless you can provide an example of how we would we screen people while leaving out political contamination.
To your notion of preventing racists and bigots being born, there's a psychological principle of nature vs. nurture, and I'm pretty sure the verdict is that people are not born racist/intolerant, they become so. This sort of goes back to my answer for psychological testing.
This is why I want to leave psychological testing out. You're only allowed to have children if the political establishment allows you too. How are we supposed to keep political contamination out of the screening process? Lets say a person is Muslim or Christian and their religious beliefs are considered "undesirable" then they will probably be screened out. Thus discriminating against people of faith. Or if we have a religious administration or congress in office then the rules can be altered to screen out "undesirables". Imagine the Bush administration being able to select the "psychological profiles" that are allowed to have children.
All you are promoting is institutionalized racism and discrimination.
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
I can't disagree with any of this, I need to research it some before I can give you a retort, but I have heard of the immigration thing, I forgot about that.
No need for research. China has a gender imbalance. Though China does not allow abortions which leads to natural births and the infanticide that results. Gender selecting occurs during late term which just about everybody except the extremists are against. This opens up legal problems of when are people granted their constitutional rights? Does a fetus have to make it out of the womb before it's legally protected from death?
As for the population controls. How can abortions in America or Europe prevents the over population in growing countries like India and China? That's like mowing your lawn hoping that your neighbors grass will magically be cut as well. The only way you'll get population controls in China or India would be to promote abortion there. Which will lead to gender imbalance as males are preferred in their cultures.
Final note: Do you not see ANY problem with allowing politicians to decide what the voting base looks like?
Edit: Just something I want to tack on. I'm all for offering financial incentives to low income women or women in general to freeze some eggs and then have their tubes tied. This only prevents natural births but, still allows for artificial insemination. I'm not sure if the process is possible for men but, still there are alternatives.
Not much point to regulation when the regulars would rather look at porn.
Doesn't help that government policies leading back to the carter administration artificially inflated real estate and other market prices and forced banks to put people into homes they couldn't afford (i.e people who didn't make enough to even afford the payments). Which helped lead to this nasty mess we've been dealing with the last two years.
Oh and it also doesn't help that government officials were manipulating the market and bilking us through their own corrupt legislation. Wonderful isn't it?
Everybody with authority is to blame, not just Wall Street.
Doesn't help that government policies leading back to the carter administration artificially inflated real estate and other market prices and forced banks to put people into homes they couldn't afford (i.e people who didn't make enough to even afford the payments). Which helped lead to this nasty mess we've been dealing with the last two years.
Oh and it also doesn't help that government officials were manipulating the market and bilking us through their own corrupt legislation. Wonderful isn't it?
Everybody with authority is to blame, not just Wall Street.
Rbz wrote...
Then again, other people can qualify for head of the house hold and get a $8,350 standard deduction while still filing individually, but that's neither here nor there. I mentioned to HE that this argument is complete shit, hence his edit.I'll just quote what I told him:
Can't heterosexual couples do that shit? Just for that one reason, the third argument dies. "Waaah, they shouldn't marry because they'll abuse some loophole." "Well, faggot, let's restrict heterosexual marriage for the same reason."
I'm just repeating the argument for the sake of discussion. The only argument they have that I lend any credit to is the affect on children from gay parents. I find the studies are all too easy to contaminate with political bias. I want to believe that children from gay parents turn out mentally and emotionally stable. I need to see more studies before I can make a judgment.
misterstupid wrote...
I yet contend. I agree that the united states take matter as interventionists, and usually only if they lose out if they don't, but then they go way overboard. Look at iraq. Our original plan was to get rid of terrorists and be done. Now we are vested in them to make them a min-U.S. We set up the government, we keep the peace, and we determine exactly how good they are doing.Also the corruption point is just like i said. The U.N is a joke. They don't help out as they should because they can't/won't. Yes I'm sure most people who run U.N operations are people who like the paycheck and keep quiet as to said corruption.
The U.S try's to push other country's into what the U.S wants. This is what has caused terrorism and anti-american sentiments.
I believe that refutes(to a degree) most of your very important arguments.
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. Care to clear that up?
HentaiElder wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
1). Children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems.[align=justify]Well, thanks for providing other arguments. I considered using more than just a religious argument (by looking up other stances) but didn't want to ramble on too much.
The first argument is very interesting though. I don't know the validity of it, but it definitely has got me thinking about my own state of mind and how I didn't really grow up with my father. I may not be much different from most people (as far as psychological/mental processes go) but I do believe I have an issue here and there. Rbz might know a little something about that, but who doesn't have issues? Anyway, that argument definitely strikes me as something interesting and worth looking into (not that I think I can prove it to be correct or incorrect).
A quick google search has lead to mix results. One study says children become flawed. Another say's they are perfectly fine. Another says that the children develop more empathy to social diversity, another says single parent homes are better for the child's development.
Study 1
Study 2
Study 1 claims that children of gay parents have minor advantages over heterosexual parents.
Study 2 claims
Does parental sexual orientation have an important impact on
child or adolescent development? Results of recent research provide no evidence that it does. In fact, the findings suggest that parental sexual orientation is less important than the qualities of family relationships. More important to youth than the gender of their parent’s partner is the quality of daily interaction and the strength of relationships with the parents they have.
child or adolescent development? Results of recent research provide no evidence that it does. In fact, the findings suggest that parental sexual orientation is less important than the qualities of family relationships. More important to youth than the gender of their parent’s partner is the quality of daily interaction and the strength of relationships with the parents they have.
Another article which spoke of an unlinked study said that boy of lesbian parents were less aggressive and more nurturing while girls were more likely to have higher pursuits (doctor, lawyer, astronaut,etc). I can sort of see how people can claime that gay parents affects the child in a negative way. Society, especially older people want boys to be masculine and wants girls to be more feminine.
Rbz wrote...
Would you elaborate on the third one? My bullshit detector doesn't see why a "Family Health Care" for gays would be a problem.They believe gays would get hitched not because they love one another but, because they'd get legal benefits they otherwise wouldn't have had being single. Married couples currently enjoy the benefits of lower payments, taxes,etc because the household is considered more stable and various other factors. So people would get hitched for tax breaks (from filing jointly instead of individually), lower payments, etc.
MoneyDRuffy wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
2). Redefining the definition of marriage will open a door to further redefinitions (i.e. people marrying pets, siblings,etc).I believe, I heard/read somewhere that there is a number of people that have married buildings. And then there is some Japanese kid getting a 2D waifu.
Waiting on the day we legalize 2-d marriage...and polygamy. What?? Don't look at me like I'm crazy!
HentaiElder wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Americans don't care about ones sexual orientation but, they do take issue with marriage. Why? I'm not too sure.That's something that I'm not sure about either. Personally, I find it to be rather stupid that people will not accept others' choices of who they want to marry. Why does it bother people that two gay* people want to be together (married)? It's their life and choice, not the choice or life of anyone else.
I looked around for some non-religious arguments against gay marriage and I came up with these
1). Children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems.
2). Redefining the definition of marriage will open a door to further redefinitions (i.e. people marrying pets, siblings,etc).
3). That people will use this as a way to take advantage of "family health care plans" and similar benefits.
I'm not familiar with any studies supporting number 1. I think argument 2 is a logical fallacy but, I see argument 3 as a potential problem but, I'm not sure how they can prevent fraud through this method without affecting legit couples.
As I said forever and a day ago. I don't really care about marriage as a legal institution. I see it as more of a religious one. Non-married couples are not given the same benefits as married couples which technically counts as a form of discrimination by my definition. Though I do recognize that long term couplings are required for mentally and emotionally developed children.
Aud1o Blood wrote...
Also: What do you do to screw a company you don't shop with anyway?Get your hands on the memo and show it to gay communities or people who sympathize with them. Best case scenario, one of them sues A.A. for discrimination which will pick up media attention and give the company a black eye. Not to mention a hefty hit to their bottom line.
Unless you're looking for pranks to pull then I can't help you.
I think the majority of Americans don't care about ones sexual orientation but, they do take issue with marriage. Why? I'm not too sure. I am willing to guess that it has something to do with the notion of same sex parents would disrupt the perception of gender roles and the role models. I guess they think a boy with two feminine men will turn out to be feminine or something to that effect.
I think the homosexual movement lost a lot of ground in public opinion when they brought transsexuals into their movement. To the average person transsexuals are mentally disturbed people.
I think the homosexual movement lost a lot of ground in public opinion when they brought transsexuals into their movement. To the average person transsexuals are mentally disturbed people.