luinthoron Posts
Then on the other side, you have the parents who required their children to say "Yes, ma'am. No, ma'am." while speaking to me, and basically in military.
I was brought up like this, and if I ever have children I will bring them up like this.
Personally I find it disgusting when children refer to their parents simply by their first name or nicknames. To me, that's simply unacceptable. The english language utterly lacks honorifics. It utterly lacks "-san" "-sama" "-chan" "-sempai", and even saying "sir" and "ma'am" makes a person sound like, as you put it, "basically in the military."
There was a girl who came in with a dirty soccer uniform and I asked her if she won, and she said "I don't know, did we Daddy?" Sports basically make it so everybody is a winner, and losers don't feel like losers.
I'd say that was pretty touching, actually. The girl looks like she had fun rather than looking out for who won or lost. Kudos to the dad.
cyw0rg wrote...
As a Filipino as myself, it hurts me as much as well, because I know how the system works... First it's just allowing women to vote, then a special separate area for women on the train, & now banning lolis! I wouldn't be surprised if total Hentai Ban & Porn is next!...1)Lessen the power of women by not voting for any of them
Yeah, women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Right? Right? And how dare they set up trains so that they aren't groped! Who do they think they are?! Women belong in the kitchen and their only use is to breed!
Censorship is about power and control. It exists when one group wishes to limit what another group has access to. It benefits anyone in power, and screws the ones who aren't.
Razen wrote...
What I'm most curious to know is what does the government constitute as loli. I never look at hentai that depicts any age less than high schoolers. Are they considered loli? As long as they have boobs, are they safe game?That's the problem -- there is no way to tell the age of a drawing.
Let's take Yoko from Gurren Lagann. She's supposed to be 14 (which is underage just about anywhere). She has ginormous tits. Or any girl from the cast of Lucky Star, who are all 17 to 18, but even their 20+ year old teacher looks younger than most anime characters, and only one character has breasts to speak of.
Let's say aguy has lucky star hentai. Can he be prosecuted for CP? After all, nearly every character in lucky star looks pre pubescent.
Drawings have no age.
is loli worth the fight for it existence as a genre in doujin.
Yes. Not loli itself, but freedom of expression.
Why ban loli? Is it because it is "immoral"? If yes, then should we ban all immoral fiction? Murder and is a far worse crime, should we also ban every movie/novel with murder in it?
I can't sakte. Laste time I tried skating with friends, within 2 hours they could start wobbling around. Me? after two hours I still couldn't stand.
I can't whistle, either.
I can't whistle, either.
Digital art has control z. This makes for easier correcting mistakes. Digital also makes for easy manipulation, storage, and sending over mail, so commercially digital is simply more convenient.
However, if you think your friend gets more comments and views simply because he uses a digital medium, you're mistaken.
However, if you think your friend gets more comments and views simply because he uses a digital medium, you're mistaken.
Soldiers die so that their countrymen may enjoy freedom.
Its their right to protest. Making these people shut up would make a soldier's death meaningless.
Its their right to protest. Making these people shut up would make a soldier's death meaningless.
=YOSHITSUNA= wrote...
It's pretty widespead from where I come from. A subject called "Christan Living" is inserted into most private and public school curiculum too. And what's worse, the instructors for the said subjects are close minded about the opinions of skeptic students.If its a private school, you can't do squat. Their school, their rules, their curriculum. They can be as closed minded as they want to be.
ShaggyJebus wrote...
We all know that downloading Jay-Z's new single off of Limewire is illegal. It's common sense. But I can legally listen to the song (and watch the video) on YouTube. What if I use a program to rip the music from the video? Have I illegally obtained the song? What if I use a tape recorder to record the song from the video? (I hold it up to the speakers while the video's playing.) Is that illegal?yes
Copyright laws should exist. Work should be protected, in some way. But the current laws don't specify what is and what isn't legal. i guess they never really did. If I recorded songs off of the radio and made a mixtape in 1995, was I breaking the law?
Yes.
The spirit of copyright law is "like a book."
Basically, a book can be read out loud. You can memorize it. But you cannot put it down on a physical medium. You cannot photocopy it. You cannot memorize it then write it down. Once you do, that physical medium can exist in a seperate area from the original book. Obviously, a single book cannot exist at 2 places at the same time, and so copyright is violated.
Youtube is played from their servers. The copy exists in their servers. In fact, Youtube makes it deliberately hard to make copies of their files so that people can't claim "well its on my pc's temp folder, so that already violates copyright!" The only time you can actually watch a youtube video without being hooked to their servers is if you take deliberate steps to copy the video and save it on your hard disk.
Another odd thing I came across - people selling mp3s that they had bought from iTunes or wherever. Pretty much, I buy a song for $0.99, and a month later, I sell it to you for $0.50. I give it to you on a USB drive, I suppose, or send it through email. That sounds fine, but it's easy to right-click a music file, select "Copy," and then "Paste" it in a different folder on your computer. You would be selling a song you bought while also keeping the song. Again, I suppose you could have done this in the past - ripping a CD then selling it to a store that sells used CDs. Is that illegal?
Yes, and how. Unless the person was a licensed distributor, in which case they paid the licensing fee (which is a hell of a lot more than what normal people would pay for a song).
Is that really any different from copying a CD and giving it to a friend, which is technically illegal? Oh yeah, there is one difference: When you do it for a friend, you don't get any money, but when you sell it to a store, you do. So it's not illegal when money's involved?
It's worse. Some violations of copyright can be avoided by claiming fair use (for example, using songs for educational purposes;' this also adresses Trily's question above -- parody falls under fair use). However, it's very hard to get way with fair use if you're making money off of it.
Note that RIAA is retarded and has gone after kids using kids songs for school.
Anyways, getting back to the point, how should copyright laws work in this digital age?
See my discussion above. A song cannot exist in a seperate physical medium.
Not all addictions are psychological ones that you simply can give up by saying no.
To illustrate, let's take salt.
Salt isn't a drug, but the body is hardwired to crave it. It isn't a matter of simply saying "no," you will fucking die if you don't get salt, and so the body, even if it has enough salt, is telling your brain that salt is yummy and tastes good.
Heroin causes a physical addiction. Once hooked to it, giving it up becomes difficult because your body is saying no. If by some miracle of genetics that your body is able to resist the addiction, good for you. But looking down on people who _can't_ is just being on a fucking high horse when you yourself couldn't resist the temptation of getting hooked in the first place.
Alcoholism is another example. Alchoholism has well-known and strong genetic disposition. In other words, some alcoholicshave a much, much harder time at avoiding it. Tough shit, but looking down on these people, as one poster put it, "issue them a savage beating" because they lost on the genetic lottery is just being a douchebag. That's like saying a person is inferior because his mom couldn't afford to buy him a PS3, but yours could.
To illustrate, let's take salt.
Salt isn't a drug, but the body is hardwired to crave it. It isn't a matter of simply saying "no," you will fucking die if you don't get salt, and so the body, even if it has enough salt, is telling your brain that salt is yummy and tastes good.
Heroin causes a physical addiction. Once hooked to it, giving it up becomes difficult because your body is saying no. If by some miracle of genetics that your body is able to resist the addiction, good for you. But looking down on people who _can't_ is just being on a fucking high horse when you yourself couldn't resist the temptation of getting hooked in the first place.
Alcoholism is another example. Alchoholism has well-known and strong genetic disposition. In other words, some alcoholicshave a much, much harder time at avoiding it. Tough shit, but looking down on these people, as one poster put it, "issue them a savage beating" because they lost on the genetic lottery is just being a douchebag. That's like saying a person is inferior because his mom couldn't afford to buy him a PS3, but yours could.
Knowledge of subatomic particless is really beyond the realm of everyday need.
While knowledge is important and ignorance should be avoided, there is absolutely nothing wrong if a person can't hold his end in a discussion with a LHC scientist. I wouldn't hold it against a person if his knowledge of nuclear physics or quantum mechanics is limited to knowing what protons, electron, and neutrons are.
While knowledge is important and ignorance should be avoided, there is absolutely nothing wrong if a person can't hold his end in a discussion with a LHC scientist. I wouldn't hold it against a person if his knowledge of nuclear physics or quantum mechanics is limited to knowing what protons, electron, and neutrons are.
Depends. Some narcissitsisis (sp) are a blast to be with. I have this friend who thought himself the greatest person in the world, and he was very loud about it, but he was brutally honest. Being with him was equally embarassing and hilarious.
The ones I don't like I ignore.
The ones I don't like I ignore.
Black Rock Shooter.
The hair looks genuinely shitty and its a bit too glossy, but this is pretty much done.
The hair looks genuinely shitty and its a bit too glossy, but this is pretty much done.
psychological egoism
So, how to argue against this? There are a few from the wiki (the easiest to see is the circular logic involved), but I like this one, quoted from another forum:
Once upon a time, young ones, a great wizard trod the earth of England, and his name was Hobbes. Hobbes was cunning and wise, a man of prodigious talents, who saw deeper into the affairs of man the social creature than any who had come before. But though Hobbes' gaze penetrated the human state as sunlight in darkness, he was blind to the affairs of the human heart. In his blindness and ignorance did he conjure a monster, Psychological Egoism, and for over a hundred years the Kingdom of England was haunted by this beast.
'Twas a good and hearty man of God, Joseph Butler, who took up Logic, the immortal weapon of true heroes, which once had been wielded by Hobbes himself, and turned it against the foul dragon. "Begone, creature of Hobbes!" he cried. "I declare you impossible! If the only desire be that for pleasure, it can never be fulfilled! For pleasure is not a thing to be acquired from the world, but the product of mind, and the mind to experience pleasure must have some predisposition to produce it! These dispositions are none other than the desires, appetites, and interests which we call motives! A man feels no pleasure in benevolence unless he is benevolent!"
When the hero Butler finished his fifteen sermons, the dragon of Psychological Egoism lay dead at his feet. And across the land of Europe there was rejoicing in his deed. But in time, the deed of Butler were fell into obscurity, and the shadow of the beast once again darkened the hearts of men. Philosophers, with their knowledge of the words that once banished the beast, have retreated to their towers of ivory; they live in safety of the dragon, but forget those who live below.
So I come to you now, young ones, to tell you of those words, to teach you that the beast you fear is but a phantom, clawless, toothless, without form or fire. And so it ever was.
Relevant part bolded and italicized.
Basically, if a person feels pleasure from altruism, its because he's altruistic, not because of some weird logic saying that he's actually just trying to pleasure himself.
Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism.
So, how to argue against this? There are a few from the wiki (the easiest to see is the circular logic involved), but I like this one, quoted from another forum:
Once upon a time, young ones, a great wizard trod the earth of England, and his name was Hobbes. Hobbes was cunning and wise, a man of prodigious talents, who saw deeper into the affairs of man the social creature than any who had come before. But though Hobbes' gaze penetrated the human state as sunlight in darkness, he was blind to the affairs of the human heart. In his blindness and ignorance did he conjure a monster, Psychological Egoism, and for over a hundred years the Kingdom of England was haunted by this beast.
'Twas a good and hearty man of God, Joseph Butler, who took up Logic, the immortal weapon of true heroes, which once had been wielded by Hobbes himself, and turned it against the foul dragon. "Begone, creature of Hobbes!" he cried. "I declare you impossible! If the only desire be that for pleasure, it can never be fulfilled! For pleasure is not a thing to be acquired from the world, but the product of mind, and the mind to experience pleasure must have some predisposition to produce it! These dispositions are none other than the desires, appetites, and interests which we call motives! A man feels no pleasure in benevolence unless he is benevolent!"
When the hero Butler finished his fifteen sermons, the dragon of Psychological Egoism lay dead at his feet. And across the land of Europe there was rejoicing in his deed. But in time, the deed of Butler were fell into obscurity, and the shadow of the beast once again darkened the hearts of men. Philosophers, with their knowledge of the words that once banished the beast, have retreated to their towers of ivory; they live in safety of the dragon, but forget those who live below.
So I come to you now, young ones, to tell you of those words, to teach you that the beast you fear is but a phantom, clawless, toothless, without form or fire. And so it ever was.
Relevant part bolded and italicized.
Basically, if a person feels pleasure from altruism, its because he's altruistic, not because of some weird logic saying that he's actually just trying to pleasure himself.