Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

Somebody on your side who won't help you. How is that supposed to give you hope? They're just another bystander then.

In the end I have my disagreements and severe dislike of religion but, in the end as long as the religious people keep their religion to themselves and their community then we'll get along just fine.

Yeah... that alone pushed my theory from being a theory to factual truth. Whitelion is far more well read than I am. If I expect to remain his rival I need to pick my game up.

For simplicity as this is about personal codes or ethics rather than about facts I'll try to keep this short and I may show personal views rather than facts.

If you have a religion but, keep it personal. I'll think your naive.
if you have a religion and push it on others. I'll think your an idiot.

I don't respect anybody who chooses to believe in some divine being. I only look down on them (figuratively) for needing a crutch to make it through life. I can at least not mock their religion in front of them. Regardless if I want religious buildings burned to the ground, religion banned and "believers" locked up in mental asylums. That my friends is a personal opinion and those hold no place in an intelligent argument.



You shouldn't have a reason to be nice other than the fact that being nice is the right thing to do. Your actions effect society as a whole. Cut that guy off in traffic and he may take his anger out on somebody else.



God isn't going to help you out of a tight spot. I mean, why should he/she/it? What makes you any different than another person in the same situation. Maybe they're in a worse situation than you. Why should an all powerful being pay such close attention to the tiny ant on a planet full of other ants? What makes this tiny ant any more special than the others? In truth, that (as in Pocru's logic) actually makes me more depressed than normal.

This all boils down into this equation;

Should subject A be held responsible for the actions of subject B?

Common sense would dictate that no, they shouldn't be. Under this logic if you believe that either Cigarette or Gun manufactures should be held liable then when a toddler swallows a chemical product such as Drain-O should they(the company) be held liable due to the child swallowing it? While someone may argue "accidental vs intentional" this argument is rendered invalid for gun manufacturers (or sellers) there are several regulations such as holding periods on fire arms, back ground checks, limits to the amount of guns or ammunition that one can purchase within a given month. These restrictions prevent then impulsive actions of somebody from just getting a gun and using it on somebody.

Cigarette companies on the other hand take a slightly different formula. Which asks the question. Should a company be able to make a profit based on the decision of a person that leads to the detriment of that persons health. Not talking about second hand smoke just the act of one person smoking. For this example the individual who smokes only smoked in an isolated room with no possibility of another person being harmed by the second hand. For that, the company should be allowed to sell cigarettes. Why? The reason is that the person who choose to smoke made the choice by themselves. The company didn't light their first cigarette nor did the company force them to use their product which lead to the detriment of their health.

McDonalds was held liable in court because somebody make the choice to eat nothing but, McDonald's food for several years. Does punishing the company for the personal choice of a single individual seem right? The company didn't force this man to eat their food. Nothing stopped him from bringing a sandwich or a microwave dinner from home but, this man chose to eat their food everyday.

So, for cigarettes...Should they be punished for a persons decision? Logic says no.

So why would somebody want these companies shut down? One reason, morality and gentlemen...

Lady justice doesn't give a damn about morality.

Fat countries are fat

To add to shaggy's statement. Weight gain is part of our culture. Our ever increasing reliance on fast food in combination with our increasingly sedentary lifestyles is a prime way for people to gain weight. If you work in a cubical or at a desk all day you aren't going to get much exercise since once you get home you still have a life to manage so exercise tends to be left by the wayside.

Valid point. I'll keep that in mind next time I come across some American hating S.O.B. When you use that argument in the past most people back pedal to "Well Bush..." Which these people fail to realize that politicians are liars. Its the nature of their craft. Bush didn't portray himself as some right wing, fanatical, fascist nut job. Barrack Obama didn't portray himself as a anti-capitalistic, Marxist either. The president may be the head of the government and the icon on the world stage for America. He doesn't represent all of the citizens so using him as a way to label all Americans shows flawed logic.

We may be a bit full of ourselves as a country but, let me ask you this; Who does everyone come running to when they need humanitarian aid, Peacekeeping troops, etc?

@Pd: Rbz and Tsurayu both have valid points. Religion plays a huge role in our politics. Everything from censorship, gay marriage, abortion, ten commandments in government buildings, the list goes on.

Anyways, on the topic at hand. I'm an American, I love my country but, my complaints about the general idiocy that seems to be taking hold of the people like some sort of stupid plague. Another complaint is the way the government has been ignoring the very principals of what it was to be American.

I love my country(land) and I believe it is the best. We have a variety of terrains and awe inspiring views. Especially, when traveling through the Appalachian mountains or new england. As for my government, the founding principals (such as the constitution) are what I believe to be the best crafted legal documents in history but, the current incarnation of government as well as those that have been around in our lifetimes are nothing less than sickening to me.

It has it's flaws but, there is nowhere else I would want to call home.

Boo! Now I wanna lynch you...

Anyways, I claim Neneko Izumi from DearS (bad picture)

What some of you are missing is that China will be reluctant to put any significant pressure on north Korea as China deals 2 billions dollars in trade annually with North Korea.

Link here

and here

Plus, the logic of not only pissing off a trading partner but, an erratic crackpot next door whose armed with nuclear missiles isn't exactly a bright move on china's behalf. They will if anything, try to play this down so they can calm the North Koreans down without any real force.

I personally believe this is just a show of domestic force in order to show the elite in the government that he still holds power while at the same time showing his poorer countrymen that his iron fist is still clenched.

On an international scale. I believe this is just a show of force to try and intimidate what he perceives as spineless cowards who won't actually do anything outside of harsh words to stop him.

Related Note; north Korea has been working on a nuclear program going all the way back to the 80's




Link here

Also for those of you who haven't paid attention to the news today North Korea claims it is no longer bound by the truce that was sign in the 1950's with South Korea. This is just another example of the temperament that China has to deal with next door which further explains the reason why china will want this to settle down as quietly and peacefully as possible.



Last one here

I'm siding with waar on this one, a disease or disability doesn't define who you are, but limits your abilities. Any person who chooses to remain disabled shouldn't be treated any differently than a normal person. They are intentionally handicapping themselves from their full potential. While I personally think it is an asinine choice but, I have to respect their wishes based on my personal principals. Nobody has the "right" to force anything on anybody including treatments. You can still think they are dumber than a sack of hammers for their choice.

A good example is internet use in Iran and china. Those countries have either secluded themselves on the internet or outight limited bandwidth output within the entire country. Another fallacy is that the internet gives anonymity. If it was like that then people would never get caught "breaking the law" on the internet nut, I digress. This is just another power grab under the veil of the common good by a politician.

The hell are you talking about? Nobody watches T.V. anymore and what is this "reading" you speak of?

Likes:
1. the forums - I dwell in S.D. though but, I venture out when it's safe.
2. the great trio that run the site and keep the site and forums going
3. the awesome people in the forums
4. no more forum crashes and faster page loading
5. the hentai and other goodies

Dislikes:
1. lack of moderation (Jacob has told me that he's working on this personally)

[/quote]

Same a G-money in general but, slightly different details.

I'd like to offer my services to "handle" the bastard that screwed you over in the first place.

Trust me, It's an offer you can not refuse

If they were attacking ships for the food and humanitarian supplies then this might be a feasible idea but, these people are attacking ships for money or things they can sell. They usually target supercargo ships to take the men hostage. With the average ransom being anywhere from 100,000 to over 1 million a head plus, any money/valuables in the safe, on their persons are plenty of reasons to board a ship in these poor areas. Chance to earn 1 million dollars with less than a 5% of getting caught? Sign me up.



tl;dr They aren't attacking ships for food. They want money.

Can I ask for a slight exemption from the standard. I'm moving this weekend and the adjoining week which will kill my ability to enter into the reclaiming week and I would strongly prefer to keep my current waifu's. I'm only interested in claiming a single new one at the moment which things should be back to normal by then but, then again they might not.

So, due to extreme circumstances can we work something out?

To add onto this, don't forget about single parents Shaggy. The loss of a second income, lack of one on one time between parent and child among other reasons. If a couple gets a divorce then they should lose their children because of the negative effects on the children. /sarcasm

Link to article here.

While you (Raw) may have a foundation to believe that the child may be adversely effected by having two homosexual parents, there is no "right" to adopt a child but, this doesn't matter as gays can already adopt children with Florida and Utah being the only two states that prohibit the practice. As I noted earlier in the thread a homosexual man is 16 times more likely to have a P.H.D. as a heterosexual male (check page 4 second post down). This would mean that the child would have more advantages in life than other children whose families won't have the fiscal resources.

On the study you mentioned, it's common courtesy in the S.D. to present evidence on any study you mention(a news article is sufficient). Plus, I'm interested in reading the study myself.

We have the same philosophy when it comes to government but, this isn't a "what if" situation. You can see it in media everyday. Anybody who criticizes Obama or the administration is dismissed as either hateful, idiotic or even racist. A example from the past is the attempts to shut down talk radio. Blogs are just the newer version of talk radio and the powers that be wish to take tear down those who criticize or oppose their methods.

Simplest answer, Biology. Human brains are programmed at birth to find certain things attractive. Same reason why some guys prefer blonds over brunettes. While this is a vague explanation, trying to get detailed just makes it the whole thing murky and a case by case basis. Jacob has his reason for liking lolicon while I have my own reasons,etc,etc.

I wasn't being literal, just comparing an obviously exaggerated example to your flawed logic. Your rebuttal actually caused me to lol at your incompetence by not realizing that.

Just be a man and admit that Otaku and Waar got you with their individual points.

If you had bothered to do any research you would have found out that historically "pedophile" comes from the greek word paidophilia (Ï€αιδοφιλία): pais (Ï€αις, "child") and philia (φιλία, "love, friendship"). Literally "To love a child" and under this definition anybody who loves a child is a pedophile, especially parents. Any person who looks at lolicon and refers to themselves as a pedophile is referring to this definition 99% of the time, a few odd balls prevent the number from being 100%

Current legal definitions come from the works of

In 1886 a Viennese psychiatrist known as Richard von Krafft-Ebing coined the phrase paedophilia erotica which was described as having

1). The sexual interest is toward prepubescent youths only (didn't include teenagers).

Richard Von Krafft-Ebing also categorized them in three groups

1) pedophile
2) surrogate (that is, the youth are regarded as a substitute object for a preferred, non-available adult object)
3) sadist

This is the root of the modern definition which shows up in the book "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems" along with a revision of that books definition by The "APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". These are futher categorized
here.

So to answer you question in the simplest matter. A pedophile (child molester) can look at lolicon (art) but, being a lolicon (Lolita complex) doesn't make you a pedophile.
-----------------------------------------------------



Hate to burst your bubble champ but, research in 1996 by the the US Government Accountability Office concluded, "the existence of a cycle of sexual abuse was not established." The reason for the "cycle of violence" theory was because the research was retrospective. Most studies since then have asked the abusers if they were themselves abused in their childhood, the number which turned out to be low thus debunking the CoV theory. While research done by James Cantor, Ray Blanchard and several of their colleagues, reported a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function. Details can be found here.