So... The Flood + porn.

Sounds pointless.

4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,xmas special, 2, The Clone Wars, First 7 minutes of 5.

huh?

Do the Original Trilogy first, then the Prequels.

That's how most of us watched them, and we turned out fine.

Spoiler

I'd hate to see what would happen if you reversed the order.......

You end up preferring the prequels by far.

THE HORROR

I think "it" is a completely reasonable English neuter, but we'd have to get rid of the connotation. Just call everyone "it", but clarify that you're just trying to start a trend and not have it be offensive. Because that's apparently how changing definitions works.

There's no sense in trying to invent some new word when we already kinda have one at our disposal, just because we're just too much of pussies to handle it, apparently. Desensitize.

Autoscopophobia. I made that up, but it's basically the fear of my own reflection. I avoid mirrors. It sort of explains my avatar. Images over the Internet are fine, because I can pretend who I'm looking at isn't really me. But at the same time, my shrouded face is supposed to represent shame.

Scopophobia is the fear of being seen--and "auto", of course, means self.

You're an idiot.

Oh, and driving.

Kakorrhaphiophobia? I guess.

If so, LAME. Fuck the EU.

But no, I'm pretty sure they're just taking elements from the EU. Kinda like how they took Kylo Ren's sword design from the EU (apparently).

LOLOL POSTING OLD NEWS STORIES

SO FUNNEY

they're weird and duplicitous

Curious: Which ones gave you the most trouble?

I wouldn't have a problem with suffering if it was voluntary, yes. Part of what made your initial question a little ridiculous to me was the 100% notion, which is just too unrealistic to even think about. If you had said the vast majority, I'd probably wonder just what makes the suffering so desirable. 100% implies that they need the suffering in order to function (which would also make it an imposition) and "vast majority" implies a number of things--none of which really favor the ideal of procreation in my eyes.

And again, I know you don't like questions like that, because they're kinda dodgy and they don't answer the question directly, but I mean, it's all part of the discussion, and questions like that certainly help to contextualize and justify the microcosm we've thought up of. It just makes it easier to answer. Or, rather, less difficult to answer.

Boring and dumb.

Since I was unbanned, I took it upon myself to search up my username here--to see how much discussion of myself has taken place in my wake. Because I do like a good stroke of the ego every once in awhile. You are all such nice people.

Then I found that, soon after I was banned, Meta had actually made a thread addressed to me, but I couldn't respond to him because of my having been banned. So, I'll take the liberty of responding now, because I'm not a guy who just... doesn't respond to queries posed to him.

Assume we live in some sort of techno-socialist utopia. Bio-ethics is ridden with abolitionism and utilitarianism; suffering simply doesn't exist anymore.

However, despite all of this amazing technological progress, suffering is offered as a choice to people. 100% of the population cause themselves to suffer in varying degrees at various point in their life.

If this were true - take it to be - would procreation still be immoral, and would suffering be still inherently undesirable in your mind?

It would still be immoral. 100% of the population submits to suffering? Doesn't sound like a choice to me.

See, you simply cannot use terms like "choice" and "100%" together like that. If I flip a coin ten times, for example, and get heads every single time, I can't say that there's a 100% chance of getting heads. Indeed, if I flipped a coin for all 7.2 billion people living on Earth right now, and I got heads 7.2 billion times, I still can't say that the coin has a 100% chance of getting heads.

The fact is, there will be at least one instance down the line where the other option is flipped. This is called statistical inevitability. There will be one outlier who will say, "Holy FUCK. This 'suffering' thing seems really fucking dumb, and I don't think I'll submit myself to it."

If I don't play devil's advocate and apply hard realism to the scenario (which I know you hate when I do), and play your scenario exactly as you... may have intended it, and literally every single human being submits to the suffering, then that cannot be described as a choice under any rational, cogent definition of the word.