Lelouch24 Posts
[color=#2e1a6b]Some of the h-manga and doujins use different artist names for the same artist.
For example,
https://www.fakku.net/artists/shunsaku-tomose
https://www.fakku.net/artists/mugenkidou
https://www.fakku.net/artists/mugenkidou-a
Are all the same artist. The problem is that if you like mugenkidou's art for example, you can't see Shunsaku's art nor mugenkidou-a's art when you search mugenkidou on Fakku. You can see an artist's associated names on baka-updates manga (example), but I don't think many people know about that (I just learned about it). Another well known duplicate artist is Banana Jam and Hanzaki Jirou, both different names for the same artist. Jin and mtsp are also duplicates
Can we re-name the artist so that there's only one artist name?
For example,
https://www.fakku.net/artists/shunsaku-tomose
https://www.fakku.net/artists/mugenkidou
https://www.fakku.net/artists/mugenkidou-a
Are all the same artist. The problem is that if you like mugenkidou's art for example, you can't see Shunsaku's art nor mugenkidou-a's art when you search mugenkidou on Fakku. You can see an artist's associated names on baka-updates manga (example), but I don't think many people know about that (I just learned about it). Another well known duplicate artist is Banana Jam and Hanzaki Jirou, both different names for the same artist. Jin and mtsp are also duplicates
Can we re-name the artist so that there's only one artist name?
[color=#2e1a6b]3 questions:
Are eggs a sufficient source of protein, or should I invest in some shakes (maybe both)?
When (relative to the workout time) should I eat Protein?
I mostly just care about my muscle's appearance right now; Should I do low-reps high-weight, or high-weight low-reps?
Are eggs a sufficient source of protein, or should I invest in some shakes (maybe both)?
When (relative to the workout time) should I eat Protein?
I mostly just care about my muscle's appearance right now; Should I do low-reps high-weight, or high-weight low-reps?
elitemage101 wrote...
So I use fakku as my main for of pornography, but if the conversation ever comes up (guys will be guys) and Hentai is mentioned I deny ever using this media, am i a hypocrite for this? Should i be defending Hentai?[color=#2e1a6b]This has nothing to do with hypocrisy, this is just lying. It would only be hypocrisy if you did this while condemning others for lying about themselves.
There's really no point trying to defend hentai in such an environment, it's not gonna help the reputation of hentai, only hurt yours
LustfulAngel wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]The divide between liberal and conservative has nothing to do with colonies having different currencies.
Back then, the colonies having different currencies would lead to complications in the economic system. I'm suggesting that the very wide-range and scope of the political reality in Today's America makes a separate governing system virtually impossible.
Hell, see: The Supreme Court VS Arizona regarding Arizona's immigration bill. The liberal-leaning White House was going to go as far as the U.N. to punish State rights.
[color=#2e1a6b]Still don't see how currencies have anything to do with this. I'm not advocating for each state to have it's own currency, since the constitution gives congress the power/responsibility to coin money.
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]Seems pretty simple to me. The only thing that might be complicated is whether or not a gay couple can have power of attorney while traveling in a state that doesn't acknowledge gay marriage.
Don't you find that pretty significant?
[color=#2e1a6b]No, though I really don't know how the court system works. I think we should clarify this before we continue referencing this issue.
Similarly, a woman might want to have an abortion and let's assume she waits until the very last practical minute. Oh wait, the state in question doesn't support abortions.
[color=#2e1a6b]Cool story. Don't wait 'till the last minute
Consistency within the laws of the land, is what makes for an efficient(and fair, safe and just government).
[color=#2e1a6b]If by consistency you mean that every region is supposed to have the same policies, then there isn't necessarily a correlation between consistency and an "efficient, fair, safe, and just government". There might be some policies that would be more efficient when nationalized. but nationalizing any policy will increase the percentage of people governed by policy they disagree with (especially when it's a controversial policy). Nationalizing policy also increases corporate interest, resulting in more lobbying.
And I don't understand how checks and balance relate to this.
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]You can have both, just not both over the same issue. I'm not proposing that they both have governance over the same issue. Agreed, it could be possible if roles are clearly defined and neither one steps over the boundaries over the other. But that's idealistic and unfortunately hasn't played out as we would like.
[color=#2e1a6b]That 10th ammendment you quoted seems pretty clear. So tell me, where does the constitution delegate the power to fund Planned Parenthood?
cruz737 wrote...
Gravity cat wrote...
Lusty's at it again it seems.https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=20488
This isn't IB, post to contribute to the topic or something related to the topic, or don't post at all. If your post was meant as an insulted to LA, explain why you disagree with his views.
[color=#2e1a6b]Sadly, most people get away with posts like that,
LustfulAngel 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
Constitutionally correct yes, realistically speaking? No. The divide between Conservative and Liberal is so deep, as to be a political representation of the Continential States(IE: When the currency of Pennsylvania, was different from the one in New York.)
[color=#2e1a6b]The divide between liberal and conservative has nothing to do with colonies having different currencies.
If different states should have different laws, one acknowledging gay marriage and the other one denying it, different abortion laws, etc. Imagine the inefficency of our police squads and of government regulation?
[color=#2e1a6b]Seems pretty simple to me. The only thing that might be complicated is whether or not a gay couple can have power of attorney while traveling in a state that doesn't acknowledge gay marriage.
You can either have State Governance or Federal Governance, but you can't have both. The attempt of such has led to a Plutocratic Anarchy of sorts.
[color=#2e1a6b]You can have both, just not both over the same issue. I'm not proposing that they both have governance over the same issue.
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
[color=#2e1a6b]I think you can get a download link just by adding /download to the end of the url
so change
https://www.fakku.net/doujinshi/sister-paradise-chapter-4-reupload-english
to
https://www.fakku.net/doujinshi/sister-paradise-chapter-4-reupload-english/download
so change
https://www.fakku.net/doujinshi/sister-paradise-chapter-4-reupload-english
to
https://www.fakku.net/doujinshi/sister-paradise-chapter-4-reupload-english/download
[color=#2e1a6b]Is the Hentai tag supposed to denote heterosexual content? Because the last 2 yaoi traps were tagged as hentai, even though there were no females in it.
Most Yuri and Yaoi don't have a hentai tag.
Most Yuri and Yaoi don't have a hentai tag.
[color=#2e1a6b]Yeah, it's been happening a lot recently.
Although, I think some of them get fixed after a while. I know this used to have this problem (you can tell from the comments), yet it's fine now.
Although, I think some of them get fixed after a while. I know this used to have this problem (you can tell from the comments), yet it's fine now.
Gravity cat wrote...
Not sure why SD is up there in the first place.[color=#2e1a6b]I always use that button, though I don't care if it gets removed.
I doubt altering those buttons will have a noticeable impact in the number of requests in the wrong section or the number of bad SD threads
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't really see false statements as much of an issue; On the occasion that they make one, they're called out on and criticized for it. My major complaint against the mainstream media is that they deceptively withhold facts that have significant importance regarding the issue. That's not a false statement, but it certainly has a similar effect.
[color=#2e1a6b]Don't they already do that? at least to some extent
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
I don't know about you but, I don't want Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Disney and oil companies telling me what is true and what is false.[color=#2e1a6b]Don't they already do that? at least to some extent
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Steven H. wrote...
So, I wonder when FPoD will be in this thread."Speak of the devil and he doth appear".
Black Jesus JC wrote...
Also, on the topic of the assault gun ban. In the stories i mentioned of gun owners defending themselves or others, from what i can read none of them needed a assault rifle to do it. So i'm not sure why gun owners are so against a ban of them.This is a question that comes to the heart of a gun owners philosophy. The gun owners that I have spoken to believe that the citizens should have comparable weapons to that of the government that is supposed to protect them. The reason for this is, the founding fathers at the time of the Constitution's ratification had to deal with the real threat of government confiscating weapons from the population as a means to make them easier to control. I believe we both can agree that an unarmed population is easier to push around than an armed one. There have been several accounts throughout history where the governing body has used violence against unarmed civilians and even armed civilians that were on the "wrong side" of an issue.
Now, I won't go so far as to say that an unarmed population is asking for a genocide. However, the threat of an armed population is supposed to exist as a countermeasure to government abuses. People want weapons to protect themselves from more than common burglars they want to protect themselves from an abusive or tyrannical government. Since it's happened repeatedly in other countries, there is naive to say "it can't happen here"
To view it another way, the state keeps you in line by having threats of force against you. If you break a law, the state will fine or imprison you. If you resist, then the guns come out. An armed population is a similar measure towards the government. If local representatives, police, congress or the president goes against the will of the people then we vote them out. If they refuse to cooperate with the legal system, then the guns come out and we force them to cooperate with our laws.
[color=#2e1a6b]I suspect that it is for this same reason that the Government wants to take away said guns.
Black Jesus JC wrote...
From what i understand, federal money cannot be used for abortion by Planned Parenthood,which does far more than abortions anyways.[color=#2e1a6b]You can't fund planned parenthood without indirectly funding abortions.
As long as their expenses from non-abortion services exceeds their revenue from federal taxes, they can expend as much money as they want on abortions. Basically, revenue that would have gone towards their non-abortion services goes to abortions, and the federal taxes reimburse said revenue.
SamRavster wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
The minimum wage doesn't protect workers, it protects corporations. They can abide by the minimum wage and thereby devalue the worker class. It's basically a page out of Alinsky, Marx, etc. It doesn't work and it will never work. [align=justify][color=green][font=verdana]Okay, I know that Tegumi has banned you from posting in this thread again (rightly so - I don't bother reading your posts as they're way too long and off-topic), but I think that this one point shows how misguided you truly are. I don't even think I need to explain myself on this point on how wrong you are.
This is kinda unfair... Not only can lustful not respond, but you refuse to give the slightest explanation as to why he's wrong.
And no, I'm not saying I agree with everything he says... His long, seemingly irrelevant posts are bugging too
[color=#2e1a6b]I think we should look at an economy that is doing well in both the short run and the long run, and do our best to mimic it. I'd like to try to mimic Hong Kong's economy; I've never been there, but I've heard very good things about it. it's also the freeist economy in the world.
I have no idea what successful economy we're trying to mimic now
I have no idea what successful economy we're trying to mimic now
[color=#2e1a6b]There are 2 major problems with the 2012 NDAA, neither of which you addressed:
1. There isn't any precise definition of "terrorist".
You stated that
[color=#2e1a6b]But you didn't provide a source for this claim. Without a clear definition of a terrorist, the definition can be made to include people like me. This isn't just me being paranoid; it's actually really easy to be put on the suspected terrorists list. I wouldn't be surprised of the NDAA extended to suspected terrorists.
2. The lack of a fair trial.
This was the most significant part of the bill that sounded all the alarms. A trial is a safeguard against unreasonable sentences by the government. If the NDAA allowed for indefinite detention of citizens with a fair trial, I'd be ok with that, and most people would be too. The combination of a vague definition of "terrorist" to allow for unreasonable sentences, and the lack of a trial to protect us from unreasonable sentences, makes this a very dangerous bill.
Some people have said that it's ok since it's the government won't use this power (or at least not on me). But we wouldn't know if the government was using this power or not, and even if they didn't, there's no good reason for letting them have this power.
1. There isn't any precise definition of "terrorist".
You stated that
Let it be made clear once more that just because you're an activist, or you're anti america, or a protester, or a journalist going into enemy territory, none of these make you in danger for being detained under the NDAA. If you're an american citizen, you'll be fine...unless you join Al Qaeda for some reason. Apart from that, neither the NDAA or the AUMF grant the government the ability to just arrest you whenever they want for 'national security reasons'.
[color=#2e1a6b]But you didn't provide a source for this claim. Without a clear definition of a terrorist, the definition can be made to include people like me. This isn't just me being paranoid; it's actually really easy to be put on the suspected terrorists list. I wouldn't be surprised of the NDAA extended to suspected terrorists.
2. The lack of a fair trial.
This was the most significant part of the bill that sounded all the alarms. A trial is a safeguard against unreasonable sentences by the government. If the NDAA allowed for indefinite detention of citizens with a fair trial, I'd be ok with that, and most people would be too. The combination of a vague definition of "terrorist" to allow for unreasonable sentences, and the lack of a trial to protect us from unreasonable sentences, makes this a very dangerous bill.
Some people have said that it's ok since it's the government won't use this power (or at least not on me). But we wouldn't know if the government was using this power or not, and even if they didn't, there's no good reason for letting them have this power.
Tegumi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
I joined these forums when I was 16, and I there were some moments where it showed (I just turned 18 a few days ago).Clever boy.
Also, Lustful Angel is still an idiot.
[color=#2e1a6b]Whatever
I don't see how a good discussion can come from such insults.
[color=#2e1a6b](When I use the word "opinion", I'm not at all implying that it isn't supported by evidence)
[color=#2e1a6b]Everyone thinks their opinion is the correct one (note that opinions don't have to entail certainty. "X might be true" is still an opinion). We're actually being intellectually dishonest if we don't think our opinion is correct. This usually occurs after someone's been convinced that (s)he's wrong, but is too stubborn/prideful to admit it.
If someone holds an opinion that's mutually exclusive to our own, we will always "think" their opinion is wrong. If someone were to think that an opinion (that isn't mutually exclusive) was wrong just because it's different, then there's a legitiment issue there. But I rarely see that happen in SD; disagreements almost always occur from contradicting opinions
[color=#2e1a6b]I think these 2 things are somewhat related. Most opinions/viewpoints are based on other opinions/viewpoints, and create a sorta web of interconnected ideas. A discussion where users address the perspectives of other users should result in the discussion expanding beyond a specific topic. While I've certainly seen discussions get off-topic for bad reasons (usually because of insults or completely irrelevant assertions), most topics get off-topic because we address the perspective of other users.
For example, Biglundi made a thread about "why Ron Paul blows". I made a reply defending Ron Paul against Biglundi's accusations. As replies went back and forth, we started to discuss what our initial perspectives were based on. In the end, we were discussing government health care, public education, immigration, and a few other issues all at once; the main topic (Ron Paul) was lost entirely.
Sadly, you're kinda right about SD; it has had a lot of immature bickering and insulting. I admit to having some immature moments, but I've been doing my best to avoid that. I joined these forums when I was 16, and I there were some moments where it showed (I just turned 18 a few days ago). I don't really see that much immature bickering anymore, which is good. Unfortunately, I've seen way too many insults thrown out without the argument being addressed. Biglundi and I insult each other, but we do so after we've addressed the argument. Blank insults are probably the worst thing we can do in SD; all they cause is the bickering that you're so frustrated with.
Grenouille88 wrote...
Why is it that so many users around here seem to think that their opinion is the only "correct" one?[color=#2e1a6b]Everyone thinks their opinion is the correct one (note that opinions don't have to entail certainty. "X might be true" is still an opinion). We're actually being intellectually dishonest if we don't think our opinion is correct. This usually occurs after someone's been convinced that (s)he's wrong, but is too stubborn/prideful to admit it.
If someone holds an opinion that's mutually exclusive to our own, we will always "think" their opinion is wrong. If someone were to think that an opinion (that isn't mutually exclusive) was wrong just because it's different, then there's a legitiment issue there. But I rarely see that happen in SD; disagreements almost always occur from contradicting opinions
Too many threads devolved to two or three users inanely bickering among themselves and the main topic of discussion was lost...
...Why can't we get more people talking about intelligent topics and trying to understand for the perspectives of other users?
...Why can't we get more people talking about intelligent topics and trying to understand for the perspectives of other users?
[color=#2e1a6b]I think these 2 things are somewhat related. Most opinions/viewpoints are based on other opinions/viewpoints, and create a sorta web of interconnected ideas. A discussion where users address the perspectives of other users should result in the discussion expanding beyond a specific topic. While I've certainly seen discussions get off-topic for bad reasons (usually because of insults or completely irrelevant assertions), most topics get off-topic because we address the perspective of other users.
For example, Biglundi made a thread about "why Ron Paul blows". I made a reply defending Ron Paul against Biglundi's accusations. As replies went back and forth, we started to discuss what our initial perspectives were based on. In the end, we were discussing government health care, public education, immigration, and a few other issues all at once; the main topic (Ron Paul) was lost entirely.
Sadly, you're kinda right about SD; it has had a lot of immature bickering and insulting. I admit to having some immature moments, but I've been doing my best to avoid that. I joined these forums when I was 16, and I there were some moments where it showed (I just turned 18 a few days ago). I don't really see that much immature bickering anymore, which is good. Unfortunately, I've seen way too many insults thrown out without the argument being addressed. Biglundi and I insult each other, but we do so after we've addressed the argument. Blank insults are probably the worst thing we can do in SD; all they cause is the bickering that you're so frustrated with.
