Naruto is garbage.

As long as there's some sort of protection/regulation to avoid trafficking and abuse/exploitation, yes.

It's illegal now yet there is still rampant abuse and trafficking. Even without regulations decriminalizing it would only reduce the amount of abuse already actually happening since the women would then be able to get help from the police or public services without being arrested

Wow, both of those articles were so one-sided it's not even funny.

How do they actually know the guy who threatened Anita was even related to gamergate? She's been facing heavy criticism since she debuted years ago, mostly because she's pretty much the new Jack Thompson (who also was subjected to death threats, mostly for being a liar). Everything I've seen from the actual Gamergate side has been about journalistic integrity, not anti-feminism save for those like Zoe Quiin who try to use feminism as a shield to cover up their corruption. 

Damn, I hit quote instead of edit. I shouldn't post drunk.

>I was only 9 years old
>I loved necrophillia so much, I had all the tools and autopsy tapes
>I thanked Ebola-chan every night before bed, thanking her for the corpses I had been given
>"Ebola-chan is love" I say, "Ebola-chan is unlife"
>That night I find a girl's dead body laying in the park
>I know this is my reward for my devotion to Ebola-chan
>I strip her and I pull down my pants
>I'm ready
>I penetrate her butthole
>It's so cold
>I feel a warmth moving towards me
>I feel something slip inside me
>It's Ebola-chan!
>I'm so happy!
>She tears my organs apart
>It hurts so much, but I do it for Ebola-chan
>The dead girl's dad sees me
>I look him straight in the eyes and say; "It's all Ebolavir now"
>Ebola-chan gushes out of my mouth and anus
>Ebola-chan is love, Ebola-chan is unlife.

No club can handle my swag.

I'm right here.

fite me irl

Who the hell impregnated that thing?

Especially considering there's no DNA involved

DARKNESS

NO PARENTS

continued darkness

THE OPPOSITE OF LIGHT

You mean Dustin?

Craig Rock isn't even presenting an argument for a theistic God. He's saying that the Universe would've had a prime mover, and then calling whatever that may be God.

It's making a mockery of what people like you actually believe.

That's what I thought he was trying to say too, but in the last few posts he clarified he was talking about a theistic god and apparently just doesn't understand that there is a difference between that and a prime mover.

Hell he even just tried to invoke the Ontological argument, which in addition to having been rebuked by Anslem's own contemporaries totally contradicts his previous claims that humans do not know what God is.

It must have taken the supernatural for our universe to exist as it is. We know God must exist in order for everything else to exist. Something cannot come from nothing, not naturally anyway.

You didn't answer the question. Why do you keep calling God "him" if you don't know what it is? You seem to be taking a lot of liberties with definitions which is having the effect of making you sound self contradictory.

First you say belief in god is a secular since god could refer to anything that caused the universe to exist, which I agreed with logically purely in your own terms but disagreed with on the basis that your definition was not the common or 'correct' one. Now you keep using terms to suggest you think the unknown force behind the origins of the universe must be some kind of intelligent being, which contradicts your original statement.

His power. He is supernatural.

Now I'm confused. You kept saying you don't know what God is and that you only defined him as being whatever force cause the first motion, yet you then keep referring to it as "Him" and say he has power, as if to suggest you think he still exists and that creation was some kind of conscious decision.

Which is it?

I recognize that we do not know what God is, only that He must exist.

Only if you dilute the meaning of the word 'god' to the point that it could be anything. By that line of thought I could call the universe itself God, or even call myself the god of my personal perspective.

However God, especially when capitalized, has a very specific connotation with the vast majority of English speakers; an entity that created the universe, is in some way conscious, and has moral authority. You can assign whatever arbitrary personal definition you wish, but you can't go and assume everyone else uses that definition instead of the standard one I just gave. Language doesn't work like that.

So in short; this whole deal is an Semantic dispute, quite easily the most pointless of disputes. I see now what it is you're trying to say and can see the logic in it, but you completely fail to grasp that as a human construction language is not infallible and that you can't just declare you're own special idea of what a word means as being truer than the common meaning. You may think the word 'god' can be whatever you wish since you don't know what it actually is, but you must realize that the majority do think they know what it is and that is where the common meaning comes from.

So no, "under God" is not a secular term since almost everyone except you thinks "God" refers to a supernatural entity, and ultimately the meaning of a word is dependent on what the majority agrees too not whatever vague ideas individuals attribute to it. That's just how language works.

And like Vincent said, we already have words like "universe" or "nature," however nice you may think it is to consider those synonyms for the word "God," it's totally unnecessary and only generates confusion.