Remind me, what's your stance on drug legalization? I know you're against people personally getting high, but I've always had the mindset that if someone wants to do a bunch of heroin and kill themselves, they should be legally able to. Their body, their choice.

i'm pro legalize every drug ever

if there is a drug abuser, our response should not be to label that person a criminal
that's just a little bit insane

and creating a dangerous underground market for this shit isn't a brilliant plan either

bigthink has tons of interviews of people discussing all sorts of pressing topics, as well as more controversial viewpoints, so i don't find it surprising at all that they'd have some guy talking about legalization on their channel

not to mention, the majority of americans agree that marijuana ought to be legalized anyway, and i think it's been that way for a couple years now

anyway, i wouldn't consider legalization to be a "huge" win for civilization, just in the sense that we never should have criminalized it in the first place--sort of just the mentality of, we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back or be presented with some award for... undoing what we never should have done in the first place--i don't really consider that a victory in any sense

What you got against people who modify their bodies?

is that what i said?

no

i said that i hate body modifications
that doesn't mean i have anything against people who modify their bodies

i just hate body modifications

you won't

Quote from: Verbatim on March 29, 2015, 06:17:16 PM

idc

Can I write a long fanfic gay love story about you and Trent Reznor?

you lack the talent

Quote from: Jester on March 29, 2015, 01:01:39 PM

Is that verby's pic? Good god...

what a dumb question

If you admitted that you're wrong, and that I'm not a genocidal maniac, I wouldn't respond with vitriol.
Literally everyone disagrees with you.

Oh, and I'd like an apology.

I don't take kindly to being referred to as a genocidal maniac, when I'm not one. Simple as that.

I will defend myself.

Nineteen, kid.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, kid.

threats to humanity.

You thinking of me as a threat makes my dick ROCK hard.

We're only a threat for as long as there is a reason to keep humanity around. Which there isn't.
And you're not gonna find one. And this isn't the thread to discuss it anyway. And I won't discuss it with you, of all people.

I just wanted to make that clear.

If there's no reason for humanity to be around, I'm about as much of a threat to humanity as a trash can is a threat to garbage.

Quote from: Sargon of Akkad on March 27, 2015, 08:47:08 PM

Anti-natalism from, say, a radical environmentalist mindset, could be genocidal. Say a group decides humans should die out because they encroach on natural habitats and pollute the earth. They sterilize themselves and begin forcibly sterilizing everyone else. This is pretty close to genocide.

I think I recall Verb saying that he believes abortions should be mandatory at some point. So that might qualify for the kind of thing you're talking about.

Not de jure, but de facto. If everyone was an anti-natalist, everyone would be okay with getting abortions anyway. Not to mention, everyone would be smart enough not to get each other pregnant in the first place.

So yes, that was an exaggeration.

You are welcome to try and challenge this definition

i'm doing that right the fuck now.

Demonstrate to me how the current legal definition of genocide isn't a piece of fucking shit.

How so?

Because there's no reason you would've brought it up if you didn't think that the philosophy's intentions fell under the legal definition of genocide.

"Article 2 of the Genocide Convention:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;"[/i]

Ethnic cleansing intends the removal of a group, genocide its destruction.

I already contest the Genocide Convention, so you can't fucking regurgitate that shit at me. I say the Genocide Convention is wrong. Demonstrate to me how they're "not wrong". And don't just say it's because they're "respected" with "years of experience".

Explain to me, using LOGIC ALONE, why genocide doesn't have to involve murder.

You could send an entire ethnicity into space with a lifetime supply of sustenance and whatever else they need to survive out there, and that would also count as ethnic cleansing. But it wouldn't be fucking GENOCIDE, for fuck's sake. Not unless you sent them out in space without the proper equipment.

LOL, THE THREAD WAS SPLIT BEFORE HE WAS FINISHED TYPING UP HIS RESPONSE, SO IT WENT IN THE WRONG THREAD

SO FUNI