Lelouch24 Posts
The Randomness wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
The Randomness wrote...
1)2) Morality does exist, it's just that people want to bastardize it and make their own morals for themselves and ruining parts of it to fit their own needs. For example, I find the death penalty to be fair, other people don't believe in it and say I am immoral for suggestion the killing of a criminal who killed.
As someone else said, morality is just a word, and there are no rules set in stone declaring what is and isn't moral.
To imply it's being "bastardized" is silly and immoral.(see what I did there?)
So it is implied that saying "my morality is right and not yours" is forcing YOUR morality on others?
[color=#2e1a6b]Until it has the force of law behind it, it doesn't matter what one asserts about morality; it's not forcing anything on others.
The actual definition of morality is:
"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior"
So the statement "my morality is right" doesn't really make any sense anyways.
Random Encounter wrote...
Currently studying philosophy at my second year of A-Levels. I'm interested to see this communities response to some of the questions we ask in class. I'll leave a few up here for debate:1) Is a God necessary?
[color=#2e1a6b]No, there's no practical need that necessitates a God.
2) Does morality exist?
[color=#2e1a6b]Yes, but morality is just a word, and just like all words, it only holds the meaning assigned to it. In order for the word "morality" to have a meaningful affect upon the way we behave, the word must infer that an action is something we ought or ought not do. People give different meanings to the word, but many meanings fail to demonstrate that an action is something we ought not do.
3) What is the value of art? (Hentai included of course)
[color=#2e1a6b]"value" is subjective, and "art" can (but not always) refer to a lot of different things. For me, art usually refers to old paintings and sculptures, to which I hold absolutely no value. If hentai, music, or anime is art, then my value of it is proportional to the happiness it provides me.
Is there a meaning of life?
[color=#2e1a6b]For life to have meaning, there would have to be something apart from life. So, if "life" refers to an individual's life, it can have meaning because there's something apart from their life. If you're referring to life as a whole, then not really.
If there's no God will that lead to the collapse of morality?
[color=#2e1a6b]It will lead to a collapse in morality that bases its meaning upon God's existence, But morality has other meanings that don't rely on God's existence.
Are utopia's possible?
[color=#2e1a6b]What Fiery-dono said.
[color=#2e1a6b]I really want to, but I don't have the talent to make a costume, nor the money to buy one
Anonymous wrote...
Come on Raze and Sindalf took time for these and these they deserve to have their work on here.[color=#2e1a6b]All of Sindalf's uploads are in the FAKKU translations forum, a subforum of the hentai manga and doujinshi forum.
I had trouble finding this page, and I think other people have too. Any way we can post a link to this forum in the videos section?
edit: woah, he sure picked an old thread to bump
animefreak_usa wrote...
Add "/download" With out the"" on the url address of the doujin.https://www.fakku.net/manga/just-a-sudden-impulse-english/download
[color=#2e1a6b]I know ryssen made a list of 100 people asking this, but why isn't there a download button? I thought it was taken down for an update many months ago, but the downloads seem to be working now. I'd think more people would notice a button instead of assuming they're supposed to edit the URL
Ryssen wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
I'd much rather have a "mark as read" system.We already have a basic version of that.
Spoiler:
Black titles means that you clicked it.
Red titles means that you haven't clicked it.
[color=#2e1a6b]The color change is from the browsing history. It goes back to red whenever you delete the browsing history (at least in Chrome). I delete my history a lot, so it doesn't really help me. The main reason that I'd be interested in a mark as read system is that I could do a search for "unread incest vanilla" or something, and it would only show titles that I haven't read yet.
I would like a "read later" option. The title(s) would then pile up to a list. There should be two options next to the title: remove (or) read and add to favorites. The list should preferably be next to your Favorites.
[color=#2e1a6b]This is on the to-do list, so I think we should discuss this more thoroughly
If I understand it right, you're proposing that the "read later" system would function much like favorites (you access them the same way). There would be 2 options when you go to the manga page: "read later" and "add to favorites". If you go to the manga page when it's on your read later list, there will be 2 options that say "remove" and "add to favorites" (adding to favorites would automatically remove it from read later). Once it's in your favorites, there would just be the remove option.
[color=#2e1a6b]Before we do anything with a rating system, we need to be able to sort search results by rating/most favorites
I don't really don't care about an upvote (and possibly downvote) system. I'd much rather have a "mark as read" system, then have a search option that calculates which doujins have the best favorites/readers ratio.
I don't really don't care about an upvote (and possibly downvote) system. I'd much rather have a "mark as read" system, then have a search option that calculates which doujins have the best favorites/readers ratio.
[color=#2e1a6b]The search results have a problem with new content where anything posted after a certain date doesn't show up. I made a thread about this in November when the search results where omitting everything after August. Right now, the search seems to be ommitting everything after Dec 31st
[color=#2e1a6b]I'd really like to see a form of digitized tutoring be the primary means of education. Its ability to adapt to each individual could even surpass real tutors themselves. This would also fulfill most of the OP's suggestions
[color=#2e1a6b]I kinda want to start a thread about the federal reserve, but I don't really understand financial institutions and other complicated financial history enough to adequately defend my critique of it
theotherjacob wrote...
http://whistleblowers.freehosting.net/federal_power.htmhttp://www.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/fed.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_reserve_system/index.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/22/power-grab-at-the-fed/
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/wall_street/31040431_1_interest-rates-big-banks-member-banks
Is there anything more I can link that proves that the fed is a private institute, the only control congress has over the fed is that they appoint the members. They can't even audit the fed.
[color=#2e1a6b]If you get rid of everything else you've said in this thread and just make an argument based on this source from your last link, you'd have a pretty good case for claiming that the fed is a private institution.
BigLundi wrote...
The sad thing is? Half of SD would probably agree with this video[color=#2e1a6b]If you think that's sad, look at the like bar (and the comments).
I actually disagree/see lots of problems with most of the video. This is a much better critique of Keynesian economics
[color=#2e1a6b]
There's a couple of uploads like this. The uploader usually claims that it's a different translator, but in this case, both doujins have the same translator
There's a couple of uploads like this. The uploader usually claims that it's a different translator, but in this case, both doujins have the same translator
Steven H. wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]I really like this idea and I'd like to see more support for it. Steven H. wrote...
Oh this again![color=#2e1a6b]Even if it's been suggested before, it hasn't been put on the To-do list, nor has it been put on a "rejected ideas" list
If it has been brought up as many times as it has, don't you think logically it's already on the "rejected ideas list" or the "hmmm good idea, we'll see about this 2 years from now list".
[color=#2e1a6b]You act like he asked where the downloads were
Every time subscribing/favoriting artists is suggested, the users respond with positive feedback, while (to my knowledge) the staff haven't addressed this at all.
[color=#2e1a6b]I really like this idea and I'd like to see more support for it.
[color=#2e1a6b]Even if it's been suggested before, it hasn't been put on the To-do list, nor has it been put on a "rejected ideas" list
[color=#2e1a6b]Bookmarking only works with a few artists. If there are lots of artists you consistently like, it's a big waste of time to bookmark them.
Steven H. wrote...
Oh this again![color=#2e1a6b]Even if it's been suggested before, it hasn't been put on the To-do list, nor has it been put on a "rejected ideas" list
If you have a certain favorite artist just bookmark them and look at your bookmarked page now and then.
[color=#2e1a6b]Bookmarking only works with a few artists. If there are lots of artists you consistently like, it's a big waste of time to bookmark them.
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
Lollikittie wrote...
Overriding state sovereignty is a terrible move for America. It's unconstitutional, in a very literal sense. States should be able to self-determinate. If a bible-belt state wants to outlaw it, fine. All the independent women can move to a progressive state with more realistic and appropriate women's services policies.But making Federal law supreme? That goes against the very basis this country was based on.
[color=#2e1a6b]Quote for truth
I'm gonna go ahead and assume you don't know what state sovereignty is Lelouch.
Anyhow, concerning Lollikittie's comment, this is, and I'm sorry to say, horribly ignorant of the law. State sovereignty only means that what one state does, cannot be infringed by another state. But there's a fine line between that, and saying the federal government shouldn't be able to overrule a state's law.
Under the latter system, we are no longer a democratic republic, but a confederacy of states. That's not what we are, especially in accordance to the constitution. The constitution allows the states to make laws that aren't addressed by its wording and interpretation. And under the decision of Roe Vs. Wade, abortion is in fact a constitutional issue, meaning, if any one state tries to outlaw it, it will be taken to court, and it will be shot down, in accordance to the constitution.
[color=#2e1a6b] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sovereignty
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/democracy
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/republic
You're gonna have to substantiate your definition, especially since your objection is based on that definition.
We would still have a democratic republic regardless of whether or not the states had supreme power or authority.
Now it's time for "how do laws work Lundi?"
So here's the deal. Laws and rights are determined by the strongest factor that has the will to power in the world. That's horribly simplistic but bear with me. States, have small governments, that all fall under the territorial purview of one single government, the United States Federal Government. The United States Federal Government is allowed to make whatever law they want, so long as they have precedence for this law. That precedence includes constitutional interpretation by Supreme Court judges, or at the very least constitutional lawyers. If the federal government makes a law, then that law is up to the president of our government to enforce among the states. If a state makes a law that is in contradiction to federal law, then the federal law wins, unless, when taken to court, the Supreme Court or other courts decide that the Federal Law is unconstitutional(goes against the constitution, or is not authorized by it). So you might be asking how this isn't tyrannical beyond all measure. Why isn't it? Because the United States Government doesn't live in a vacuum. There's another entity that has more influence than it, and that's the United Nations. If countries that are members of the United Nations, and as such countries that are allied with the United States under treaties, say that the United States cannot do something, then it cannot do that thing, even in its own land. If it says the President MUST enforce a law he'd rather not, then he MUST enforce that law, or incur penalties. An example of both of these would be when George W. Bush signed an executive order to deny a Guantanamo Bay prisoner Writ of Habeus Corpus, and the Supreme Court informed him that under UN law(The Geneva Conventions) he's not allowed to do that, and struck it down. During Obama's administration, the UN pressured him to enforce the law against marijuana, even in states that had legalized medical marijuana, as such he had little choice but to enforce existing law in accordance to his allies' wishes, and send federal agents to shut dispensaries down.
SO! Why is THIS not tyrannical you ask? Foreign countries get to just tell our country what to do?! Well no, not that simple. See, the UN has no army. The United States, has an army. This is where power over politics comes into play. Without the United States army, the UN is, effectively, powerless to stop people from doing horrible things all over the world. Hence, the U.S. is allowed leeway to reject orders that can be sufficiently found to be unjustified, or superfluous. This is a reasonable agreement. The U.S. gets trade agreements and a stimulated economy, and in return it provides an army(and of course export/import business)for the U.N. Both can use their services to threaten the other to do what they want each other to do, but overall the most reasonable conclusion is reached.
What does this have to do with State Sovereignty? Well, imagine each state is a mini United States, and the United States itself is the UN. Same exact method.
In other words, it's perfectly fine when the Federal Government makes a reasonable, constitutional law, and states don't get to just not follow it because they don't like it.
But! I hear you protest. Abortion is not a federal law. No, but the issue was constitutionally decided upon. Which means that laws FORBIDDING its practice cannot be put into play. And now we've gone full circle.
So here's the deal. Laws and rights are determined by the strongest factor that has the will to power in the world. That's horribly simplistic but bear with me. States, have small governments, that all fall under the territorial purview of one single government, the United States Federal Government. The United States Federal Government is allowed to make whatever law they want, so long as they have precedence for this law. That precedence includes constitutional interpretation by Supreme Court judges, or at the very least constitutional lawyers. If the federal government makes a law, then that law is up to the president of our government to enforce among the states. If a state makes a law that is in contradiction to federal law, then the federal law wins, unless, when taken to court, the Supreme Court or other courts decide that the Federal Law is unconstitutional(goes against the constitution, or is not authorized by it). So you might be asking how this isn't tyrannical beyond all measure. Why isn't it? Because the United States Government doesn't live in a vacuum. There's another entity that has more influence than it, and that's the United Nations. If countries that are members of the United Nations, and as such countries that are allied with the United States under treaties, say that the United States cannot do something, then it cannot do that thing, even in its own land. If it says the President MUST enforce a law he'd rather not, then he MUST enforce that law, or incur penalties. An example of both of these would be when George W. Bush signed an executive order to deny a Guantanamo Bay prisoner Writ of Habeus Corpus, and the Supreme Court informed him that under UN law(The Geneva Conventions) he's not allowed to do that, and struck it down. During Obama's administration, the UN pressured him to enforce the law against marijuana, even in states that had legalized medical marijuana, as such he had little choice but to enforce existing law in accordance to his allies' wishes, and send federal agents to shut dispensaries down.
SO! Why is THIS not tyrannical you ask? Foreign countries get to just tell our country what to do?! Well no, not that simple. See, the UN has no army. The United States, has an army. This is where power over politics comes into play. Without the United States army, the UN is, effectively, powerless to stop people from doing horrible things all over the world. Hence, the U.S. is allowed leeway to reject orders that can be sufficiently found to be unjustified, or superfluous. This is a reasonable agreement. The U.S. gets trade agreements and a stimulated economy, and in return it provides an army(and of course export/import business)for the U.N. Both can use their services to threaten the other to do what they want each other to do, but overall the most reasonable conclusion is reached.
What does this have to do with State Sovereignty? Well, imagine each state is a mini United States, and the United States itself is the UN. Same exact method.
In other words, it's perfectly fine when the Federal Government makes a reasonable, constitutional law, and states don't get to just not follow it because they don't like it.
But! I hear you protest. Abortion is not a federal law. No, but the issue was constitutionally decided upon. Which means that laws FORBIDDING its practice cannot be put into play. And now we've gone full circle.
[color=#2e1a6b]I really don't know enough about the UN to make an informed response. I'd like to read a brief analyses of the UN by a government skeptic before I talk about the UN.