User Posts

jackyyang09 wrote...
Loliday wrote...
jackyyang09 wrote...
Loken01 wrote...
anticholic wrote...
momoka
Spoiler:
Forum Image: https://www.fakku.net/image-404/images/989134-0K044DH.png

direct link just in case
https://www.fakku.net/image-404/images/989134-0K044DH.png


Well, there's my hopes and dreams crushed. *Cries*

That is pretty awesome. Congratulations for the amazing picture.


Yeah it seems competing with the entries that already have been submitted will be close to impossible. Might as well try for the LOLz though.


Someone mentioned this in a post on a different thread, but the contest is a drawing of Momoka actually -doing- something. Of the many that have been entered, only a few of them actually have her performing some kind of activity. For all we know, the really good ones could be 100% invalid.


Well the term "doing something" is vague and could be just about anything. You could be sitting and that would technically be "doing something".

In other news, I was thinking of drawing a Yukkiri version of Momoka. One of the rules said that all drawings had to be original. I have yet to see a Yukkiri Momoka but a character based off the already made "Yukkiri shite ite ne" meme wouldn't be that original either. So would it be allowed?


Doing something generally means something other than posing when it comes to these kind of requisites. Either way, this contest is probably less about winning and more about getting more legit Momoka fanart out.

I think memes are fair game as long as you're penning them yourself. Croud-sourced humor doesn't really have copyright and what the rule is intending to avoid is downright plagiarism.
Hoyhoyhoy wrote...
Heizan-Tr5 wrote...
Iam1vs100xp wrote...
Tyranosaurus_Secks wrote...
artcellrox wrote...
Maeve wrote...
artcellrox wrote...
IvIajoi2n wrote...
Gism88 wrote...
artcellrox wrote...
Gism88 wrote...
Heizan-Tr5 wrote...
We should have a monthly shit-user chart.

Number one gets a 1-week ban as a reward.


Terrible idea.


What would you suggest, then?


We kill them.


Then Rape them.


Then burn them?


Snort the ashes


Then shit out any of the remains.


Burn the shit.


Mix the ashes in a pepper container


Place as offering to Waar?


Retreat in the hope of having pleased Waar?


I pledge myself to be a Waarior.


The more you know.
Yoshii wrote...
Mine is awesome if you ask me.


YOU STOLE MY ACCOUNT AND MADE ME LOOK LIKE A CRIMINAL MASTERMIND.
Iamnotchrishansen wrote...
Too late OP, say what called you on your shit.

OT: Blighttown. It's full of errors and it stinks. Now who wants to be Quelaag?


Obviously not too late as I crammed an edit and a title change in before you responded.
say what! wrote...
Futanari wrote...
Let's get visual about this abstract shit.

IB is like a day-long relay race where we cut off our own dicks and use them as batons. The person to trip and cry about the number of severed penises they're handed loses.


that is not a metaphor...


SHIT ABANDON SHIP THIS IS A SIMILE THREAD
Obogetyobogetyboo.
Honestly, every time we have a Waar thread, I realize that we have literally nothing better to talk about.

Seriously. We have nothing to do but complain about mods. It's the one downside to being a community based off of closet activity.
Seems like World Waar 3 in here.
animefreak_usa wrote...
Dye it green and drew eyes on the sacks.


Forum Image: http://www.inflexwetrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IFWT_hulk.png
Let's get visual about this abstract shit.

IB is like a day-long relay race where we cut off our own dicks and use them as batons. The person to trip and cry about the number of severed penises they're handed loses.
Welcome :3

Da' more artists, the better!
I really hope you actually get to blot out the sun.
Surely I am not the only one that aspires to be in this list?
yanger wrote...
Futanari wrote...
I think League is the better realization of the MOBA to me because it has a significantly stronger team focus. When it comes down to it, no MOBA is better than Starcraft in terms of gauging individual skill, so the more a MOBA leans towards team play, (which SC is not balanced for) the better off it is in context.


Lolwut? In LoL your individual skill is lees important, as you can be the best player in the world, but you won't carry 5 feeders, sorry.

SC2 is primarily solo game, so it naturally emphasizes individual skill. You've got it backwards.

Imo denying (tower denying is cool though) is a silly mechanic which adds nothing to game other than making it longer.


I tried the Dota2 beta, and it completely 'pushed me away'. I'm gonna give it another shot when I have more time.


Reading is tech, dude.
Would it be wrong if I said I wanted to like people?

Let's face it. If we don't touch dicks about the same fap material, most of us are going to turn out as mortal enemies.
I argued on the internet and I felt empty afterwards.
Manliness has some pretty good definitions out there, namely centering around the concept of a selfless person who is able to not only take, but carry through responsibilities no matter the circumstance.

The problem is that we're assumed they've all disappeared because manliness usually comes in the woefully inadequate visual-metaphor form.
BigLundi wrote...

Well, as a student training to be a professor in philosophy I can say the following things about that.

1. Arguing from an emotional place is logical in the realm of moral discourse, as morals reflect our minds and how we feel about suffering and pleasure and virtues and laws in general.
2. There are much less painful and monstrous ways to obtain meat from animals that...don't involve hanging them upside down while still fully conscious and slitting their throats, waiting for them to bleed out. I think going towards that goal of letting these animals in the LEAST die in more ethical ways before eating them is...something at the very least.
3. As someone who hopes to teach ethics one day...I'm not a utilitarian. Applying cold hard numbers to determine how things ought to be is insufficient for me.


I am asserting that the goal of humanitarian slaughter isn't a good idea because no matter the amount of mitigation of pain you provide, the stance that we're helping them by making their deaths easier doesn't alleviate the core ethical conflict that comes with harvesting them in the first place. Therefore, it is an exercise in futility and serves as a cumbersome guilt generator.

In regards to utilitarianism, I don't believe that it is just numbers. Rather, the push towards human sustainability and efficiency inevitably comes with compromises like these. We're talking about one of the most noble things our people can do to help itself, mind you. Food production has an extraordinarily high utility, to the point where it is reasonable to have discussions on whether ethical considerations should be made.

BigLundi wrote...
I don't see how you draw the logical line from, "Animals can suffer, so let's not treat them inhumanely to "Animals are going to talk and demand equal rights at some point while a pig stands on two feet."

Why is it so absurd to apply morals to technological advancements? Einstein did it with the atomic bomb. As far as animals not being able to develop past us and 'keep records' I believe I went over this in my first post. Jeremy Bentham: The question is not 'can they reason?' or 'can they talk?' but 'can they suffer?" And the answer to that is an emphatic yes.


It isn't absurd as a whole, but this particular instance maintains a very real and somber absence of a good ending. You reference that we should make steps towards creating a more human way of executing animals, but it's more of an emotional band-aid than an actual problem solver. Additionally, you know what the key difference between the bomb and animal cruelty? We can't use animal cruelty against ourselves in a military fashion. The line of demarcation is significant.

BigLundi wrote...
Not speaking for all vegetarians, but I don't believe in some karmic source of divine punishment for those that screw over livestock or anything like that, I just don't find it very moral, personally, to support an industry so callous as to the nature of animals. Why does suffering not matter when it happens to animals, but it does when it happens to humans? Why do you draw that line? What's the ethical difference between throwing a live man in a boiling cauldron to eat and throwing a live pig into a boiling vat to eat?


You just went into the karmic circle I was mentioning. There is nothing in reality that indicates that this will actually happen to humans. We will deal with it when we get there, but at this very moment, we're probably not going to have a substantial role reversal to where that question of suffering becomes applicable to us from the victim's perspective. Moreover, I would go as far as to say that it is insulting to assume that people are going to have such a low guard that they'll be duped into doing that to another human on a large scale within a realm of reasonableness.

This is the reality: We're not the pigs and we're not food. On a one-to-one scale, yes, we're deplorable, but we reasonably value human life over the value of that which we will eat. It goes back to my first point about how uphill the vegetarian proposition is. We have to stop eating pigs and stop considering pigs as food for this boiling pot analogy to be remotely equal.

BigLundi wrote...
...Ok, so you say our morals deteriorate the more we advance...why...is that not a good reason to curve the technological advancement in a different direction? We're the ones in control over where our technology develops towards...so can't we control it...you know...not going towards treating animals like nonliving objects incapable of suffering?


I'm not saying it's a bad thing to try and curve it, but you're measuring a level of guilt that comes only after you've dwelled on it verses something that actually sustains people. While yeah, you can make the statement that meat companies are heartless bastards, but given that they have to supply to a large amount of perfectly reasonable people, I'm willing to cut them some slack on the basis that they're serving a greater, more tangible ethical need.


BigLundi wrote...

I don't see the parallel. There are legitimate reasons for one, and I personally don't see any for the other. Are you saying that it's inevitable that we're going to have meat shoved in our faces so...just accept it?


Haha, yeah, that doesn't make sense. I apologize. However...

You talk about having meat shoved in your face, but it seems to me that meat is actively pursued by many and therefore this victim position doesn't actually reflect itself in reality. It is provided not out of spite but out of demand. This is a convincing picture you're painting, but it's not an accurate depiction of what is going on.
The ethics of food production seem dubious to me. Not in the sense that the intent is foul, but that it's a very easy and cheap way to guilt someone into an otherwise illogical emotional place. It shouldn't come to surprise to anyone that the process involved with removing the flesh from an animal has all the markings of a malicious ritual. Butchering is not something you do gently, and even if you alleviate some degree of pain, there's always empathy ready to remind you of how grotesque it feels. But that's the thing, there isn't an ethical way to skin a cow, chicken or pig if we were to substitute ourselves in that position. It doesn't exist in our world nor can it. Applying vegetarian ethics to the entirety of the animal product industry means abstinence from utilitarian progress.

The whole thought of being accountable about animals is tantamount to believing Animal Farm as a piece of future non-fiction. It is absurd to actually believe that our use of available resources and technology has an actual moral implication with a species that will not have a chance to develop past the human race, much less keep records of the atrocities we commit on them in the name of our own quality of life. This idea of carnivore-karma is hypothetical, and while it makes for a nice critical thinking exercise, there's nothing to it but self-generated feelings. None of the viewpoints I hold towards animals cross over into human territory. I have a different set of decision-making tools there. They are clearly marked. Anybody who says otherwise is underestimating my ability to distinguish between species.

I've heard the argument that our desensitization towards our food economy is a step towards a more apathetic and barbaric society. I would say that's true, but moral deterioration comes from every possible technological advancement that has been made in our history. If the consumer had to fight a bull every time to get a burger, we probably wouldn't have a significant craving for said burger. Life continually grows easier in some respects, and with that ease comes the natural 'meh' that results when we acquire a dependency. Therefore, it seems that while it is a bad thing to have a meat addiction, it is on the same level as having an craving for anonymity on the internet.

However, on a practical level, I love vegetarianism. The fact that it has a moral backing ensures that brilliant minds will work towards improving the quality of life of those prescribing to it, which produces delicious alternatives to practically everything. Also, periodic vegetarian bouts do wonders and the fact that people are dedicated to being support groups makes it that much easier to flux in and out of carnivorous feast or famine.