GodofAethism Posts

I have never seen the Anime, and I intend to keep it that way, so that it may not mar this song for me, because this is the best evur.

01. Riven
02. Darwinia
03. Sid Meier's Colonization
04. Pirates! Gold
05. World in Conflict
06. Battlefield 2
07. Team Fortress 2
08. Ground Control 2
09. Dawn of War: Dark Crusade Pro
10. TrueCombat

Problem #1: The gaol does not reform people. It takes them out of sight and thus out of the collective mind, and it serves as a form of civilized, domesticated revenge. However, jails being some of the more violent total institutions do not teach offenders any lesson other than violence and falsehood being the answer to all things.

Problem #2: The nutbin isn't much better. Actually, they're often worse. If you'd ask me whether I'd rather go to prison or to the loony bin, I'd pick prison, thank you. Even for normal inmates, the insane asylum can make matters worse (scientific and anecdotal literature on this abounds; cf. Miguel Bombarda), and even post-turn institutions resort to cripplingly heavy use of medication in place of long-term therapy, because it makes patients manageable and increases compliance. That, however, contributes zero to sustainable, lasting therapeutic success.

Problem #3: Effective therapy is long-term, requires lots of professional staff, etc., and is therefore expensive. Try telling people that "their tax dollars" are being "wasted" on that instead of simply banging up perpetrators 'til kingdom come. Not to speak of how that would do plenty little to quench the public thirst for revenge - even only speaking of therapeutic measures to a crowd demanding drawingquarteringcastrationbeheadinghangingandfeedingtothelions is madness.

Conclusion: The status quo is counter-productive and wasteful, but it's the most humane thing possible in a democratic system.

The problem is that medicine cannot operate on a "you might never know" basis. Hospitals around the world in this day and age are purposefully managed to be underbedded, in an attempt to cut cost and reduce bedding spans. That has the consequence that your 80-yo zero-score grannie is competing for an ICU bed with the young girl with the bicycle incident they just picked up; and at this point the question becomes just a bit more brutal.
Do you turn off the machines on the grannie and let her die? Or do you put the girl in a normal bed and let her croak? Decisions, decisions.

I personally think that if a person is deemed clinically dead with no realistic chance of survival, they ought to be switched off stat. Relatives ought to have no say in it, as it is a well-known psychological fact that they will often refuse to have a loved one switched off, because they hate to let go. That's understandable, and to some point human, I guess, but it ought to play no role in the matter at hand.

The problem here is that banning abortions affects the dark figure, which per definition can always only be a criminological estimate, and thus never a solid grounding for good research.

However, it seems to me that you're being slightly intellectually dishonest in your argumentation there, if I may be so bold as to remark such:




The claim is that demand would not decline, not that it would increase. Also, in terms of basic economics, a lack of supply does not lead to less demand, it leads to new sources of supply being found to sate demand. These "new sources of supply" in illegal goods and services are the black market, and the black market for abortions is, well, the proverbial back-alley abortion. The conventional wisdom of economics, I'm afraid, does not speak in your favour here.

The one pleasing decides where their partner goes and how fast.
Being in control of your lover's pleasure can be ...rather... empowering.

Yes I have. Yes I like going down on her. Why? 'cause it's fun to please the person you care most about. I enjoy sending her on a trip.

[size=10]Also, that way I get to be the dominant one, at least for a short while ;p[/h]

I dunno about cleanliness though. I prefer her not having desi-scrubbed genitals :p. A) It prevents infections, B) pheromones. That - B) - is also why I don't particularly care about showering first (plus, "sometimes" you don't wanna break the flow).


I dunno. I've never even met people other than Christian fundamentalists and 90 year olds who would have thought oral sex something out of the ordinary.

As long as there's still enough pubes, I don't much care.
No hair is like bumpin' a barbie doll or a freakin kid. Ewww.

Huge, hairy and uncut.

I wish I knew who came up with that "bros before hoes" poppycock, so I could throttle them with my bare hands. Insipid gangsta bullshit. Fuck "friends", yay for love, I'd say.

However, in your case, that still means: Leave her be, as

she's still ailing over her relationship and you barely kinda sorta like her perhaps at some time in the future we'll see. That sounds like a prime chance for ultra maximum hurt.

As always, my answer is "depends".

If "True Love" means to you "absolute devotion to your lover", then that is unfortunately very real, and equally unfortunately it tends to last quite a while. It's not true love though; there's better words for that. True slavery comes to mind. Usually, it explodes violently in everyone's faces when the charade of crippling self-denial begins to lapse. Usually, it isn't exactly healthy.

If by "True Love" you mean "effortless, magical drunken love and blindness for each other's flaws", then you're confusing it with limerence. That's quite real, but it doesn't last.

The only "True Love" I'd give any credit is when you manage to carry over the attraction from the first time of limerence to the more mundane times of everyday companionship. When you find a form of tolerating most of your partner's flaws and subduing some (i.e. the most annoying) of your own, which requires not so much constant restraint that your relationship is being torn apart by it.
That tends to last, and I think it's rather real. Sure doesn't come without effort though.

Sunday is the day when Asians lay their eggs into little white anglo-saxon protestant babies, perusing the corkscrew-shaped ovipositor at the base of their spine. From those eggs then hatch little maggots, which burrow into the flesh of the baby and devour it from the inside out, until there is no more baby flesh left. The larvae then pupate in the guise of a salaryman / office lady, whereafter they finally transform into Asian restaurant waitresses and chefs - and the cycle begins anew.

Thus, restaurants are closed on Sundays, because they're busy with the egg-laying. Only happens in California, because the eggs need the warm climate to hatch.

Cool questions bro, now I post one:
Is 1-dimensional dynamics generally hyperbolic?

Discuss.

The legendary Atari ST 1024

Edit: BONUS ROUND

I feel so fucking old.

I didn't click those links, as I still want to have lunch today.

Of course there's abuse in the porn industry, and plenty of exploitation. Not every porn flick, however, is the result of abuse and exploitation.
I'd wager that a sizable majority isn't the result of abuse.
I'd contend that the vast majority of professional porn is the result of exploitation. The vast majority of any product in this world is the result of heavy-duty exploitation. Damn.
I'd furthermore contend that the majority of "lol we film ourselves fuckin' and put it on the net for ego" flicks aren't the result of abuse or exploitation.

What is to be done about that abuse and exploitation? What FPOD said:

Admittedly numerous victims may not have the necessary legal clout, know-how, cash or guts to do so. But, in this case idealistic young men and women like you, iSquall, are called upon to take the fight where it belongs; be it by setting up a legal fund, by enlisting pro-bono legal counsel, or, perhaps most useful of all, by setting up and promoting a trade union for those in the industry.


Perhaps I'm a lick too cynical for this world, but that kind of rhetoric doesn't really work with me.
To most people a road is just an infrastructure to travel upon, but did you know that a bit more than a handful of construction workers are illegal immigrants who are routinely abused behind the scenes, when it comes to building roads?
Repeat for any kind of agrarian or heavy industry or consumer electronics product.
No, Sir!, if I were to worry about who's being abused for the sake of my standard of living, I'd have wedded the rope-maker's daughter a long time ago.




disclaimer: I don't even watch/care for real porn, so I'm totally one hundred thousand per cent objective on the issue at hand, because I'm not worried about having it 'taken away from me'!

Discussing the UÇK on fakku? SRSLY?

TALIBAN, TALIBAN!!!

quite. I am just arguing that it is in no way exclusive to socialism, and that state-controlled businesses (as opposed to state-controlled business, see below) alone make no socialist system.




I should like to remind any reader that I am in no way an adherent of socialism, and therefore not trying to argue in its favor.

The first, and most rudimentary definition of socialism, is the pre-marxian socialism (blanquists, communards, ...), which can be subsumed under the desire to create a society without class distinction - the ideal of class-less society is the first ingredient of any socialist theory. We must remind ourselves, that this early stage of 'socialism' was in no way as clear about its goals or even backgrounds as we would like it for the sake of a precise definition; hence Sombart's quip about socialism having over 260 definitions.

With the advent of Marxism, and its direct antipode, Lassallean state-socialism, other ingredients were added, which form much of the present-day perception and definition of socialism. To both Marxists and Lassalleanites it was of utmost import, that the means of production be transferred into the hands of the proletariat, because capitalism always meant that the lion's share of any expected profit would always remain in the hands of the prosperous few, whereas the workers would always only receive a wage that would barely allow them survival.

Marx saw socialism as a stage between capitalism and communism; socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat, a state of revolution, the de-privatization of the means of production was to him the necessary step forward, before communism (i.e., a global class-less society) could be attained. At this stage (socialism), class-differences were not yet entirely abolished and not all traditions of "bourgeois society" were yet done away with, but it would be marked by the slow transition to the communist mode of production - wherein the "good of all" (i.e. social improvement), as determined by science would replace "profit" as predominant business goal.

In Marxist thought, socialism needn't necessarily be the one-man dictatorship we would think of when someone mentions socialism; early revolutionaries in Russia (sailors, soldiers, workers) formed councils ("soviets"), where decision-making was a democratic process. But, the advent of Leninism added yet another important ingredient to our definition of "socialism": Lenin denounced these worker's and soldier's soviets as both ineffective and counter-revolutionary and abolished them. Leninism called for the shock troops and vanguard of the proletariat,embodied by the party cadre, to take control. Lenin established a tight planned economy model, wherein all aspects of industrial and agrarian production were centralized and subjected to party-directed command: For example, plants were assigned production targets by the party and were expected to meet them, no matter the actual demand for goods, etc.

The final bits were added to the mix by Stalinism: The total collectivization of agrarian and industrial production, (i.e. the abolishment of small, independent farms, plants, mines, etc.; instead, they were grouped into large-scale operations (kolkhoz - sovkhoz - combinate) for the sake of synergy - or so the party's line of argumentation) and the establishment of justice as "the faithful maidservant of the party on the march to communism".


SUMMARY:

Therefore, it is in my opinion not impudent to define socialism as a policy as follows† :
-ideal of class-less society
-transfer of means of production into hands of proletariat
-dictatorship of the proletariat
-de-privatization of means of production
-transition to communist mode of production, "common good" replacing profit, "scientific management" replacing supply/demand
-single party rule, with party cadre controlling the state centrally
-planned economy
-collectivized production
-instrumentalisation of judicial system as means of revolution†¡

† I'm not including things such as "personality cult", because I believe that this is much more a hallmark of despotism in general than socialism in particular. Socialism is but one form of tyranny.
†¡Included in the definition on the following grounds: While every tyranny will bend the law to its whim, they usually try to uphold the illusion of legality (cf. Hitlerites, Fascists, etc.) - socialism openly does away with it.

Sources:
A. I. Vyshinskiy: Speeches (1952)
V. I. Lenin: What is to be done (1903)
I. W. Dzhugashvili: Questions of Leninism (1939)
F. Lassalle: On the worker's problem (1863)
K. Marx: Class struggle in France (1850)

Every relationship and every person is so vastly different from every other that the only sensible generalization I dare offer is:

the advantage of being single:
freedom.

the advantage of being in a relationship:
company.