Quote from: Caesar on March 04, 2018, 04:39:30 AM

Quote from: Azumarill on March 03, 2018, 09:57:11 PM

Quote from: Yu on March 03, 2018, 09:53:27 PM

Quote from: Azumarill on March 03, 2018, 09:51:56 PM

Quote from: Yu on March 03, 2018, 09:50:50 PM

I logged on today because of Shannon, I don't know why.

join sapphire

Why would I want to join a shitty place that would ban me just for disagreeing with people? No thanks.

no one gets banned just for disagreeing. people get banned for being assholes and arguing in bad faith ad infinitum.

Wrong. I got banned for stating an opinion the collective didn't like.

Since I realised it pissed everyone off afterwards I decided to leave the situation rather than argue about it (and piss off everyone further), I got two weeks for my trouble.

Then there was Tevis and Beb for some irl reason that bled back to the forum, and Davos because he was contrarian to the majority.

Whine about being banned to someone else;

Looks to me like he was trying to refute your point. Don't really see any reason as to why he would be upset enough to whine about a ban from Sapphire. Maybe my optics aren't perfect, but Super Irish has always seemed pretty mild mannered and unconcerned with web drama.

Quote from: SecondClass on March 03, 2018, 03:40:31 AM

oh maybe not

forgot my username and password

You'd like it.

You can't say Bitch, but you can say Bastard.

They'd really ban someone for saying bitch? Sounds lame af.

I don't think they exist in an objective fact sense because their existence is relative to humanity's subjective experience. I think they exist related to the human condition. There are truths that may not be objective in a scientific/materialistic sense, but they are true relative to what we, as humans, experience. These truths lay out the foundations for ethics and morality which in turn become the foundations for our fundamental rights.

The American way is easier but I like the way Aluminium sounds more.

There are other metals that end in um instead of ium though, so the consistency argument doesn't really work for me unless you want to change platinum, lanthanum, and tantalum as well.

I think it's "flawed" relative to the general idea of perfection because I believe everything a flawed species like humanity can create is flawed in some way. I'm not convinced utopia is possible. It think it's very possible that someone would try to destroy it, to create chaos again.

Life is suffering, period. Something terrible will inevitably happen to someone that didn't deserve it. Because of that, I think there are always going to be those that fall into hopeless nihilism and resent life itself. There will always be some people that really do, pardon the cliche, just want to watch the world burn.

tbh 2018 has been a living hell for me. Very painful, both physically and mentally.

And everyone around me seems to be having terrible luck as well.

Quote from: Aether on February 07, 2018, 09:37:54 AM

Damn son that Recon post makes me legit sad. It's weird feeling such a connection to community of online peeps you've never actually met. I really wish more members would've gotten over whatever pettiness they have against Sep7agon and come here.

the drama during the early days and slash’s abrasiveness turned a few people off the site

There was plenty of drama on b.net as well. It honestly seemed like a good few people just wanted Sep7 to fail to make some kind of point.

My dad's step-sister got addicted to DXM using it to cope with mental problems. She can't even function without it now according to what her mom was telling me. It's pretty sad.

I have a preference for traditional art (though I still love both) but comparing it to digital is more or less like comparing apples and oranges. It can certainly be said that digital art is not meant to be representative of the exact same skill-set as traditional, and there's plenty that solely traditional artists do not have the skill to do that digital artists have developed because the two practices are significantly different. The same can be said for sub-sets of traditional art like drawing vs painting.

Quote from: Aether on February 18, 2018, 12:56:41 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 18, 2018, 12:30:30 PM

but you are seeing a nation where you can't live a comfortable life without working to afford the resources you need to survive

which is worse

You, at least, aren't one to suggest that life would be better without work at all, are you?

to reiterate nix: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need

the fact of the matter is that some people just aren't cut out for work, which will only become increasingly true with the advent of automation

if you work at all, your incentive for doing so should not be monetary compensation, it should be the knowledge that you're contributing something useful to your society, whether it be food, entertainment, or some other good or service

everyone works for each other

cooperation

I was just wondering if you were one to believe a life of nothing but leisure, one without responsibility, would be ideal.

Didn't think so.

Kratom isn't even a drug lol

It alters your body's chemistry beyond nutrition so it's as much of a drug as caffeine is.

i disable autocofrect because the typos arw humorous yoy dence motherfucker

This amount of typos looks like you're purposely typing too fast and careless.

Quote from: Genghis Khan on February 16, 2018, 08:31:22 AM

Quote from: Flee on February 16, 2018, 07:13:45 AM

https://www.wired.com/story/pro-gun-russian-bots-flood-twitter-after-parkland-shooting/

Looks like Russia has already put its spambots to work to push fake news (which might explain how people like Batch believed the shooter was a Democrat / antifa even though it's now looking he was part of a far right group) and pro gun rhetoric to capitalize of these situations.

https://theroperreportsite.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/florida-school-shooter-is-latino-communist-antifa-supporter/

He has already been confirmed as a member of a white nationalist group. They even confirmed it when they denied involvement.

Apparently law enforcement have specifically stated that they have been monitoring the organization ROF for a couple of years now and no ties to the shooter were ever found. The leader of the organization is now back-tracking his statements that the shooter was an affiliate. Check the video I just posed above if you want or here's some links:

Link.
Link.
Link.

I'll have to go through all of this in detail when I'm not so mentally fatigued. Even reading over the last post and responding took way more effort than I honestly have the energy to muster, dealing with my deteriorated health right now. I tried to skim through for the time being, to at least get a decent understanding and I think I see what you're trying to explain, at least I hope I do.

I would like to say that I never did think that this new legislation would be used to take anyone to court for refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns, at least not so long as the courts consist of reasonable people. The issue I was having was whether or not the possibility of such a thing was actually instantiated in the law. If the law could be interpreted that way somehow, to present an opportunity for ideologues to actually try to use it against someone at any point in the future. Basically, my concern was, not so much that is it a possibility now, but could it become a possibility in the future as society changes overtime and is the law structured in such a way that would prevent it from becoming a possibility.

I understand your gripes with Peterson, and I think they're reasonable. That laws must be open to some degree of interpretation isn't something I am personally against. I would never expect the law to have to absolutely define every specific thing that constitutes discrimination.

Contemplating it further, I think the issue I have with the vagueness of the wording is that it doesn't adequately define discrimination or hate propaganda etc. in terms of the consequences of such. IE: an action that is preventing a person from receiving a service from a business, or messages that are inciting violence against a certain group. This would allow a court to better define what actions constitute these terms in my eyes.

You say that the refusal to refer to someone as zer is not defined as discrimination in the law, but I'm not seeing how, exactly. I'm sorry if I'm not understanding the law very well, It just doesn't seem to make that distinction.

Reading this section of the bill:

that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices

It would seem the law places the responsibility on the courts to determine whether or not an action, such as refusing to refer to someone with a gender-neutral pronoun, is a violation of a person's right to "an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated etc."

What exactly is stopping the court from ruling that the refusal to refer to someone with gender-neutral pronouns is a violation of this right? Can they not make the case that doing so is preventing someone from, "making for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated?"