This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐
๐ช๐๐๐๐
Pages: 1 ... 371372373 374375 ... 1001
11161
« on: May 31, 2016, 11:36:51 PM »
Herbie: Fully Loaded is the better show
11162
« on: May 31, 2016, 11:34:41 PM »
one of these is the correct option
11163
« on: May 31, 2016, 10:58:09 PM »
disgusting
11164
« on: May 31, 2016, 10:42:07 PM »
People who quote family guy too much
11165
« on: May 31, 2016, 10:18:19 PM »
Anyone who uses the terms "irregardless", "all of the sudden", or "a whole nother"
11166
« on: May 31, 2016, 08:50:03 PM »
I attack the guards relentlessly until they have to shoot me
11167
« on: May 31, 2016, 06:43:05 PM »
Remember how it was a huge deal when the first interracial kiss aired on Star Trek? Would anyone care about a black woman and a white man kissing now? Probably not.
Apples and oranges.
11168
« on: May 31, 2016, 03:26:20 PM »
"any opinion that isn't mine is a childish complaint"
Get over yourself
11170
« on: May 31, 2016, 03:15:47 PM »
inb4trannysuperheroes
you're really dumb if you think there's even a 1/5OOO chance of this happening
11171
« on: May 31, 2016, 03:13:41 PM »
Do you think Jennifer Aniston has aged gracefully?
no
11172
« on: May 31, 2016, 03:11:32 PM »
some of these comics are really hot
11173
« on: May 31, 2016, 02:20:44 PM »
Got around 2/3 of the way through Far Harbor. I'm taking a break until the performance patch for PS4 is released (yeah yeah ">playing Fallout on console" I know)
In the mean time, I got Automotron, and I enjoyed it more than I expected. Creating robots is fun, but it does absolutely drain your resources (I am now on an eternal quest in search of aluminum). I like ADA, she's a rather saddening character, given the way she sounds when she asks of she can come with you. She seems very lonely.
I built Jezebel the most ungainly, awful body ever. I gave her a sentry bot body with Protection arms and legs.
I made a Robobrain and I named him "Brainbot". Not too creative, but I was bored.
wait people actually dislike jezebel? ADA is lame as fuck
11174
« on: May 31, 2016, 02:19:18 PM »
๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ฎ
11175
« on: May 31, 2016, 12:04:37 AM »
A human is always more important than an animal.
And you make this assertion on what grounds?
I'm a human. My species is more important than a different species.
You know, I've never actually seen anyone blatantly admit that they're a bigot before. This is kinda surreal.
I guess I am a bigot when it comes down to other species. I can admit that. I try to treat all humans equally, though, and that includes people society looks down on.
11176
« on: May 31, 2016, 12:02:10 AM »
The One With Rachel's Big Kiss
Season 7, episode 20
166th overall episode of Friends  Rachel meets up with a high school friend she presumably kissed.
Aired April 26, 2001
Written by Shana Goldberg-Meehan & Scott Silveri
Directed by Gary Halvorson
"The One With Rachel's Big Kiss" is the twentieth episode of the seventh season of Friends, which aired on April 26, 2001. It guest stars Winona Ryder as Rachel's old sorority sister, Melissa Warburton. Pretty good episode all together, the sideplot with the celebrity tuxedos was passable. Suffered from a severe lack of appearances from the guest character, but those scenes were obviously great, and the last one had great Rachel/Melissa tension. Overall 5/10 This will be the megathread for all future discussion involving this episode Save this link: http://sep7agon.net/the-flood/friends-s7e20-discussion-thread/new/#new
11177
« on: May 30, 2016, 11:12:05 PM »
 ๐ฎ
11178
« on: May 30, 2016, 10:26:26 PM »
I don't read comic books and I think superheroes are lame as hell, but that sounds awesome
11179
« on: May 30, 2016, 09:05:45 PM »
And the solution isn't to violate human rights and prohibit the act in general. There are alternatives.
We're not writing legislation; all I wanted to do was see if you'd admit that this isn't so black and white.
I never said it was. The point is to protect people's freedom of choice. Being coerced, whether you know you are or not, isn't a choice. And it's not true consent.
11180
« on: May 30, 2016, 09:04:59 PM »
And what's hypothetical is the situation I've described, where an employee truly wants to have sex with their boss. We know it's the truth, and they're not being coerced, because that's the hypothetical situation.
11181
« on: May 30, 2016, 09:03:00 PM »
And the solution isn't to violate human rights and prohibit the act in general. There are alternatives.
11182
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:42:28 PM »
There is a way to know...this is a hypothetical situation. It's really not...there are countless cases of sexual abuse by superiors in the workforce, or teachers in academia. You're basically denying that someone's judgment could ever be impaired by someone's authority. In your logic, it's morally wrong for an employee and employer to consent to sex, even though it's more than possible in reality. If a husband and wife opened a business together, and the wife was the employer of the husband, does it all of a sudden become morally wrong for them to fuck?
Obviously not, and I've already brought up my own example of that.
11183
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:35:17 PM »
There is a way to know...this is a hypothetical situation. In your logic, it's morally wrong for an employee and employer to consent to sex, even though it's more than possible in reality. If a husband and wife opened a business together, and the wife was the employer of the husband, does it all of a sudden become morally wrong for them to fuck?
11184
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:26:21 PM »
If an employer asks their employee to have sex with them, there is nothing prohibiting them from saying no. At all.
This is just factually untrue, and there's documented evidence of a victim's inability to distinguish when an abuser is taking advantage of them, like in an imbalance of power (or money, in this case).
There is a difference between coercion and consent. What if the employee was the one pushing for sex? Nope, that's illegal, too.
11185
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:23:18 PM »
If it's consensual.
Are you completely ignorant of the legal and moral ramifications of the affect of asserting power over subordinates on consent? Do you not have even an inkling of how that applies to this particular instance, or that money is very capable of replacing power in these examples?
Those implications don't matter. The employee has every right to say no, and if she does, it's immoral for the boss to do ANYTHING in response to that, workplace-wise or otherwise.
Oh, well that explains it. This morally ambiguous person will stop when requested because it'd be immoral for him to continue his actions. Now it makes sense.
For a borderline antinatalist, you sure do have a lot of faith in humanity.
We're talking morality, not law. There's nothing morally wrong with an employee consensually having sex with their employer if there's no coercion involved. There is something morally wrong with the employer pressing it after a "no".
Why do you think the law was made? This specific law, about employee - manager relations.
Rape is already against the law, there doesn't need to be another one that bans consensual sex. If an employer disregards the "no" and continues pressing it, the employee should go to the police, not give in.
11186
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:16:21 PM »
If an employer asks their employee to have sex with them, there is nothing prohibiting them from saying no. At all.
If an employee asks their employer to have sex with them, the employer has to say no, because of the law. That's ridiculous.
11187
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:11:46 PM »
If it's consensual.
Are you completely ignorant of the legal and moral ramifications of the affect of asserting power over subordinates on consent? Do you not have even an inkling of how that applies to this particular instance, or that money is very capable of replacing power in these examples?
Those implications don't matter. The employee has every right to say no, and if she does, it's immoral for the boss to do ANYTHING in response to that, workplace-wise or otherwise.
Oh, well that explains it. This morally ambiguous person will stop when requested because it'd be immoral for him to continue his actions. Now it makes sense.
For a borderline antinatalist, you sure do have a lot of faith in humanity.
We're talking morality, not law. There's nothing morally wrong with an employee consensually having sex with their employer if there's no coercion involved. There is something morally wrong with the employer pressing it after a "no".
11188
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:10:27 PM »
The employee has every right to say no
I'll restate the question: do you deny the fact that consent -- morally and legally -- is rarely possible when being leveraged by power or money?
Well, duh. But we're talking hypotheticals here. You're saying that an employee who's in love with their boss, truly wants to date them or have sex with them, is legally prohibited from doing so because we have to protect them, out of the kindness of our hearts. That's wrong. And that person is more important than the person who's too weak-willed to say no to their boss.
11189
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:03:54 PM »
If it's consensual.
Are you completely ignorant of the legal and moral ramifications of the affect of asserting power over subordinates on consent? Do you not have even an inkling of how that applies to this particular instance, or that money is very capable of replacing power in these examples?
Those implications don't matter. The employee has every right to say no, and if she does, it's immoral for the boss to do ANYTHING in response to that, workplace-wise or otherwise.
11190
« on: May 30, 2016, 07:59:29 PM »
Protecting the dignity of women is a far more important and takes priority over allowing her to be a prostitute out of some misguided ideal about personal freedom.
No, it's not. You have neither the obligation nor the right to protect people from bad choices they're consciously making.
Pages: 1 ... 371372373 374375 ... 1001
|
Show Posts