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 - Mmmmm Napalm
Pages: 1 ... 155156157 158159 ... 207
4681
« on: April 12, 2015, 02:24:36 PM »
You can't just dictate who goes on to live life
The person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period.
Who's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished? there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.
Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.
what?
I am saying that 9 months spent carrying a burden is nowhere near equal in worth to the life of a human being.
looooool, don't. you don't have the ability to carry a child so you have no right to comment on how it feels like.
I'm not saying it isn't tough. But seriously, is a nine-month long inconvenience, however great, worth a human life? No.
don't forget the nearly two decade financial obligation that many lower class people forget to plan for.
Again, adoption. Furthermore, implying that a financial sum is worth more than a human life. Not in terms of money, but in terms of what is truly important and precious in the world.
An infant or foetus has committed no crime, wronged no one. If the child's existence inconveniences the parent(s), then it is their own fault (again, not covering rape).
We're just gonna go in circles on the adoption thing, ain't we?
Yeah. Because awaiting adoption is better than being dead.
A fetus will never know it's dying.
A fifteen year old still at a shelter knows he'll never call someone "dad"
Which outcome contains less suffering?
Better to have lived than not at all. To be simply gone? A spark put out? What, because of some BS nihilistic whining about it being better to not have lived than to have lived without a father?
4682
« on: April 12, 2015, 02:19:19 PM »
You can't just dictate who goes on to live life
The person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period.
Who's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished? there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.
Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.
what?
I am saying that 9 months spent carrying a burden is nowhere near equal in worth to the life of a human being.
looooool, don't. you don't have the ability to carry a child so you have no right to comment on how it feels like.
I'm not saying it isn't tough. But seriously, is a nine-month long inconvenience, however great, worth a human life? No.
don't forget the nearly two decade financial obligation that many lower class people forget to plan for.
Again, adoption. Furthermore, implying that a financial sum is worth more than a human life. Not in terms of money, but in terms of what is truly important and precious in the world.
An infant or foetus has committed no crime, wronged no one. If the child's existence inconveniences the parent(s), then it is their own fault (again, not covering rape).
We're just gonna go in circles on the adoption thing, ain't we?
Yeah. Because awaiting adoption is better than being dead.
4683
« on: April 12, 2015, 02:18:05 PM »
But it could, right? So killing someone is justified?
It could in the right circumstance. . . Like, killing a meth-head walking through a playground with a knife.
Of course I don't disagree that the killing of other human beings is almost invariably immoral, and I'm probably more pro-life than you'd expect, but my point is that you should actually make a proper argument relevant to the well-being of society instead of just "abortion is killing, and killing is wrong".
Nothing is wrong; there is not a single action which is inherently immoral. The morality of an action is a function of its circumstances.
I agree with the methhead thing. But we're talking about an unborn child.
4684
« on: April 12, 2015, 02:16:26 PM »
No. I'm saying, the increased rate of sexual promiscuity outside the bounds of marriage is not a positive phenomenon.
Ah, I see. Well that's merely a matter of perspective.
Sorry, I thought you were trying to explain something more objective in nature with your point. Specifically, the cause of increased sexuality in youth.
Again, I attribute the latter to the "trickle down" effect. As to where this effect began, I can't be certain. Probably with the growth in popularity of the birth control pill.
4685
« on: April 12, 2015, 02:14:26 PM »
I'll be damned if that isn't the most callous philosophy I've heard in a while. It's callous to think that the proper moral metric is the general well-being and flourishing of human society?
How does killing someone save lives in this context? It doesn't, necessarily. It could just lead to greater aggregate well-being.
Wow that's stupid. It in all likelihood wouldn't benefit anyone. But it could, right? So killing someone is justified?
4686
« on: April 12, 2015, 02:12:43 PM »
You can't just dictate who goes on to live life
The person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period.
Who's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished? there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.
Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.
what?
I am saying that 9 months spent carrying a burden is nowhere near equal in worth to the life of a human being.
looooool, don't. you don't have the ability to carry a child so you have no right to comment on how it feels like.
I'm not saying it isn't tough. But seriously, is a nine-month long inconvenience, however great, worth a human life? No.
don't forget the nearly two decade financial obligation that many lower class people forget to plan for.
Again, adoption. Furthermore, implying that a financial sum is worth more than a human life. Not in terms of money, but in terms of what is truly important and precious in the world. An infant or foetus has committed no crime, wronged no one. If the child's existence inconveniences the parent(s), then it is their own fault (again, not covering rape).
4687
« on: April 12, 2015, 02:07:32 PM »
I think that a lack of social restrictions and pressures regarding sexual promiscuity will, and does, have a negative effect upon our society and is not a positive thing. It leads to a trickle down effect that eventually results in rather young children (around 12-13) becoming interested in sexual activity too early.
I don't see how the unorthodox sexualities are specifically connected with increased sexuality in youth. Privacy in sexuality isn't compromised simply because that sexuality isn't normal. In fact, a lot of times, privacy increases in those instances to avoid judgement.
However increased media coverage of any sexuality can and definitely will expose youth to it, regardless of the nature of that sexuality. It is often the case that unorthodox sexualities are displayed in media with a higher impact than their orthodox counterparts, and thus they can have the potential to influence younger people more so.
I wasn't talking about unorthodox sexualities, I was talking about sexual activity in general. I simply spoke of the silly LGBTQIA+ thing before it went on to promiscuity.
You mean to say that the acceptance of having more diverse sexualities would influence younger people to display more sexuality of their own? Do I have that right?
I would say yes and no. Yes if that acceptance is made out to be a big deal and thus displayed in media with a higher impact, as I said before. But not necessarily if that acceptance merely becomes the norm and isn't made out to be a big deal.
It is true that the former is generally the case, this day and age.
No. I'm saying, the increased rate of sexual promiscuity outside the bounds of marriage is not a positive phenomenon.
4688
« on: April 12, 2015, 02:04:38 PM »
My gosh, this is basic morality.
No, what I'm doing is basic morality. Deontology isn't tenable, and saying "killing people is bad because killing people is bad" is nothing short of lazy on your part. There's no principle of human life, just expediency; should we actively kill one person to passively save five? How about 600? What about passively letting people die?
Consequences matter, and unless you can demonstrate that abortion is always a net negative then you don't have the right to claim the moral high ground.
Wow. I'll be damned if that isn't the most callous philosophy I've heard in a while. How does killing someone save lives in this context?
4689
« on: April 12, 2015, 02:00:16 PM »
I think that a lack of social restrictions and pressures regarding sexual promiscuity will, and does, have a negative effect upon our society and is not a positive thing. It leads to a trickle down effect that eventually results in rather young children (around 12-13) becoming interested in sexual activity too early.
I don't see how the unorthodox sexualities are specifically connected with increased sexuality in youth. Privacy in sexuality isn't compromised simply because that sexuality isn't normal. In fact, a lot of times, privacy increases in those instances to avoid judgement.
However increased media coverage of any sexuality can and definitely will expose youth to it, regardless of the nature of that sexuality. It is often the case that unorthodox sexualities are displayed in media with a higher impact than their orthodox counterparts, and thus they can have the potential to influence younger people more so.
I wasn't talking about unorthodox sexualities, I was talking about sexual activity in general. I simply spoke of the silly LGBTQIA+ thing before I went on to talk about promiscuity.
4690
« on: April 12, 2015, 01:58:35 PM »
An abortion is effectively killing a human being, even if it isn't "alive" yet.
You're still yet to demonstrate why this is bad.
... Am I seriously going to have to explain why denying a person the chance at life or downright killing them before birth is wrong? My gosh, this is basic morality.
4691
« on: April 12, 2015, 01:28:59 PM »
You can't just dictate who goes on to live life
The person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period.
Who's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished? there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.
Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.
what?
I am saying that 9 months spent carrying a burden is nowhere near equal in worth to the life of a human being.
looooool, don't. you don't have the ability to carry a child so you have no right to comment on how it feels like.
I'm not saying it isn't tough. But seriously, is a nine-month long inconvenience, however great, worth a human life? No.
4692
« on: April 12, 2015, 01:26:10 PM »
classic anti gamergate logic^
Funny how gamergate logic works exactly the same way
Ummm...
>claims to be about ethics in games journalism
>ignores facts and harasses people
This is probably b8, but on the off chance it isn't, I'll bite.
The main difference between Gamergate and Gamerghazi/Antigamergate or whatever the opposition likes to be called is that we have actual evidence of collusion, impropriety and a coincided effort to slander and libel the gaming culture within the gaming press. All you guys have is tenuous cases of "harassment," and by harassment I mean pathetic rogue twitter accounts that are just the typical case of your everyday average troll. Brianna Wu's harasser in particular seemed oddly specific what with their name being "DeathToBrianna" and had virtually no ties to Gamergate.
What was originally "hey you guys can't do this in journalism, it's ethically dubious" got misconstrued as "OMG SEXISM AND MUH SOJINY" because of these false correlations between Gamergate and female harassment. It's a classic example of how both the media and progressiveness will try to find any link, regardless of how unsubstantiated it may be, between real world examples and their half baked rhetoric.
A jealous ex boyfriend doxxing someone is NOT "evidence of collusion". This is just like the celeb nudes leak except Gamergate tries to make excuses for being scummy.
The only reason that you're against progressivism is because you will lose your privilage as a white male. Progressiveness is NOT a bad thing incase you were too stupid to realise unless of course you're a disgusting social conservative.
I'm a social conservative. You see, I believe that trying to eliminate the concept of gender is retarded, and will.only.lead to development issues for children. I think that the fact that we put whores and junkies on pedastals and call them " celebrities" reflects poorly on our society as a whole. I don't think a new letter has to be added to the LGBT acronym every single time someone wants to be a unique weirdo. I think that a lack of social restrictions and pressures regarding sexual promiscuity will, and does, have a negative effect upon our society and is not a positive thing. It leads to a trickle down effect that eventually results in rather young children (around 12-13) becoming interested in sexual activity too early. The high school kids want to imitate the cool, promiscuous college kids, the middle schoolers want to be like the cool high schoolers, and so forth. I think that 14 year old girls posting sexual photos and videos of themselves an indication of the moral decadence seen in contemporary society. Your "progressives" recently advocated that students view pornography in the class room as part of sex ed. Forgive me if I want to stay far away from a future where so called "progressives"exercise considerable influence.
4693
« on: April 12, 2015, 01:07:45 PM »
You can't just dictate who goes on to live life
The person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period.
Who's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished? there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.
Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.
what?
I am saying that 9 months spent carrying a burden is nowhere near equal in worth to the life of a human being.
4694
« on: April 12, 2015, 12:48:22 PM »
You can't just dictate who goes on to live life
The person that carries it can. It's their body, they're one that's going to nurture it for the 9 month period.
Who's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished? there are plenty of kids already in need of homes, it's not exactly like we're running out.
Yes, because 9 months of someone's life is definitely worth someone else's actual life.
4695
« on: April 12, 2015, 12:42:21 PM »
Haven't watched it yet. Apparently it's an even more child friendly show than The Clone Wars was.
It's hard to describe. You're right in regards to the first few episodes, but the moment Tarkin comes in it really takes a turn for the dark. First episode Tarkin is in, he has a couple bumbling officers that had hitherto been used as recurring antagonists decapitated. I really liked TCW, but it really could vary with episode quality. Some arcs were great, others not so much. However, Rebels season one is definitely better than TCW season one, although that isn't saying much.
4696
« on: April 12, 2015, 12:38:37 PM »
]Yeah, I'm sure the kid would much rather be fucking dead than be in a poor foster home.
It doesn't have a preference.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the killing of an unborn baby, it's about whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs.
Whether it has a preference doesn't matter. You can't just dictate who goes on to live life, all because of a possible financial burden, which may or may not be placed upon you depending on events. Who's to say a family looking to adopt would suck/be impoverished? It's not a guarantee. Who's to say circumstances couldn't improve for the mother through some unforseen series of events? What you are advocating is killing/denying someone the chance at life based on something that might happen. Granted, I'm basically saying the same thing. But which is worse? Letting someone live based on something that may or may not occur? Or killing someone based on something that may or may not occur?
4697
« on: April 12, 2015, 12:28:54 PM »
a life which WILL begin, unless it is prevented from doing so.
What the fuck kind of sentence is that?
"Something will happen, unless it doesn't".
I mean, the life is slated to begin, and in all likelihood will. An abortion, however, would prevent this. Basically I'm accounting or the argument that the foetus isn't alive. I'm saying that even if the organism is not yet alive it will be, but an abortion would prevent this otherwise inevitable event. An abortion is effectively killing a human being, even if it isn't "alive" yet.
4698
« on: April 12, 2015, 09:59:23 AM »
They're great. Feel like unreleased OT films scripts were translated into comic book form.
Very well coordinated, too. The Star Wars and Darth Vader series connect in regards to plot developments, and reading one adds depth to the other.
I'd recommend Star Wars and Darth Vader, although I've heard Leia and Kanan are good too. Star Wars feels just like the movies, and Darth Vader is sort of like House of Cards, but with Darth Vader. And lightsabers and the force instead of sex.
I'd definitely recommend getting the two I highlighted. They take place in between ANH and TESB, and contain (and will, contain) some pretty important developments in regards to the overall story of Star Wars.
If you'd like, I can send you scans.
Can I read the Vader ones online anywhere?
For free? Don't know. Marvel has a digital service of course, that's how I get mine.
4699
« on: April 12, 2015, 09:46:57 AM »
They're great. Feel like unreleased OT films scripts were translated into comic book form.
Very well coordinated, too. The Star Wars and Darth Vader series connect in regards to plot developments, and reading one adds depth to the other.
I'd recommend Star Wars and Darth Vader, although I've heard Leia and Kanan are good too. Star Wars feels just like the movies, and Darth Vader is sort of like House of Cards, but with Darth Vader. And lightsabers and the force instead of sex.
I'd definitely recommend getting the two I highlighted. They take place in between ANH and TESB, and contain (and will, contain) some pretty important developments in regards to the overall story of Star Wars.
If you'd like, I can send you scans.
4700
« on: April 12, 2015, 09:03:05 AM »
I do not see why these are bad things. Because the death penalty is a cruel form of punishment that does not deter crime. It's inhumane and has no place in a developed first world society.
Because a young fetus is not sentient being. It's far from an actual baby. While obviously a debate of morality and ethics, I don't see why women should not have the freedom of choice rather than be forced to deliver a child they do not want or can not raise. And other than an appeals to emotion, I haven't heard many good arguments agains this.
Yeah, screw freedom of religion. This isn't about freedom of religion, it's about freedom from religion. "Religion in the public sphere" basically means that there shouldn't be much of a separation of church and state. It means that there could be religious conditions on public authorities ("you have to be a christian of this particular denomination or otherwise you aren't eligible for this government job") and that religion directly commands state policy.
Lower taxes for Christians! Higher taxes for atheists, and even higher for Muslims (and jews, because they killed jesus)! You can't vote unless you are part of a church! You can't sell books or make movies that go against Christianity! Gay people need to wear a yellow star on their clothing to show that they're sinners! Mandatory daily church attendance for everyone! No graduating from high school unless you can cite the bible by heart! Bible studies replaces biology, history, geology or any science classes! No public worship of any religion that isn't Christianity! Priests replace judges and juries!
Freedom of religion means you can follow the religion that you want. That you are welcome to attend any sort of church, take on certain habits and spend your free time praying to your god. That the government or anyone else can't tell you not to believe in a god or follow a religion, or break into your home, destroy your shrine and force you to forsake your god and worship theirs.
What it doesn't mean, is that you have the right to dictate others what to do because of what you believe. That your bible should be a crucial part of all the laws and policies that directly affect the lives of millions of others in your country. Religion should stay far, far away from lawmaking and the government. Or we would be going back in time by a few hundred years.
Wanting to stem the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants is not bad.
By using a wall across the entire South of the US? Not only does that give an incredibly hostile signal, it's also a very bad idea in general, both economically and practically.
A potential life is worth far more than "choice". I listed alternatives in my exchange with Das. The person to suffer the consequences for a decision should be the one who made it, not the person who resulted from such decisions. And the " foetus isn't a sentient being" argument is bullshit. You're still denying someone the chance at life, a life which WILL begin, unless it is prevented from doing so.
4701
« on: April 12, 2015, 07:38:34 AM »
Rorschach is in my opinion the least bad, Dr. Manhattan could literally save the world but doesn't because he doesn't feel like it. Dude's an asshole.
4702
« on: April 12, 2015, 07:34:27 AM »
Adoption is an option. An option preferable to denying someone life.
So you'd rather either the kid suffer in foster homes and probably end up becoming a criminal or the parents drop out of university to take care of the kid and they all live mediocre lives.
I'm not exactly pro abortion, but it's not a terrible thing to do compared to other outcomes. Now, if the parents can help raise the kid so their kids can stay in school, hell no you shouldn't have an abortion.
But it's not just about money. It's about how it's extremely likely the parents will separate and that they're bad parents. Why bring a kid into all that? We're getting overpopulated as it is.
Firstly: You're assuming the worst possible outcome. Who is to say family member''s couldn't take the child in? And if they can't, you are operating under the assumption that the child's life will be unpleasant and have no happiness in it whatsoever.
And even then, I'm sure the kid would rather be in a foster home than dead.
because they're usually as poor and impoverished as the baby having family is.
And besides, the foster system is overburdened already. No need to ruthlessly throw another soul into it.
Yeah, I'm sure the kid would much rather be fucking dead than be in a poor foster home.
Do you not understand how callous you sound?
But of course they would rather live. Living things tend to be biased towards to remaining alive if given the option.
However, I myself could not wish such a sub-par life on anyone. It would be more merciful to simply not let them experience it.
"This person, if they could answer, would probably ask they be allowed to live. Life sucks though, or at least we assume it would, so let's kill them so they don't experience it." You are operating under the assumption that life for the child has no chance of improvement or happiness.
4703
« on: April 12, 2015, 06:49:03 AM »
Honestly I hate the anti-gamergate people more than I ever could GamerGate. SJW's are probably the most condescending, unlikable people on the internet, I can most certainly understand wanting to keep them the hell away from video games.
4704
« on: April 12, 2015, 06:37:55 AM »
... Blasphemy against the Dark Lord.
EDIT: Seriously though, kind of want to kill myself now.
4705
« on: April 12, 2015, 06:19:46 AM »
Adoption is an option. An option preferable to denying someone life.
So you'd rather either the kid suffer in foster homes and probably end up becoming a criminal or the parents drop out of university to take care of the kid and they all live mediocre lives.
I'm not exactly pro abortion, but it's not a terrible thing to do compared to other outcomes. Now, if the parents can help raise the kid so their kids can stay in school, hell no you shouldn't have an abortion.
But it's not just about money. It's about how it's extremely likely the parents will separate and that they're bad parents. Why bring a kid into all that? We're getting overpopulated as it is.
Firstly: You're assuming the worst possible outcome. Who is to say family member''s couldn't take the child in? And if they can't, you are operating under the assumption that the child's life will be unpleasant and have no happiness in it whatsoever.
And even then, I'm sure the kid would rather be in a foster home than dead.
because they're usually as poor and impoverished as the baby having family is.
And besides, the foster system is overburdened already. No need to ruthlessly throw another soul into it.
Yeah, I'm sure the kid would much rather be fucking dead than be in a poor foster home. Do you not understand how callous you sound?
4706
« on: April 12, 2015, 05:31:07 AM »
Wow, people are taking Star Wars apart to find stuff from nothing.
Jesus, it's a film series
And a pretty apolitical one at that. The entirety of Star Wars' socio-political message essentially amounts to "totalitarianism is bad".
4707
« on: April 12, 2015, 05:27:38 AM »
You're probably the shittiest member on this site.
He's objectively the best.
Are you kidding? He's literally the worst.
I don't think that being a general ass, and calling people "the worst user here" is going to win you any supporters.
Supporters are for the weak, like you lot. You take comfort in knowing that people are raising you higher, but I can only find discomfort in that, because the possibility that people I don't know will let me fall exists. I'd rather stand on people to raise myself higher.
For an edgy guy like yourself, I thought you'd understand. Isn't Rorsach your hero? That just goes to prove that you're a phony, and you're one that could support me. I'd rather not have a phony support me.
1.) I am not "edgy" in the slightest. 2.) Why would I support you if you're being a jerk? 3.) Rorschach isn't my "hero", he's one of my favorite characters, but not my "hero". That'd be Theodore Roosevelt.
4708
« on: April 12, 2015, 05:21:23 AM »
But... they aren't human. They're a fictional murderous group of subhuman scum in a fictional movie.
Holy shit these people. If anything they're racist for saying "replace Tusken Raiders with black/Jewish etc" because Tusken Raiders are subhuman, so replacing them with specific races of PEOPLE is fucking racist.
And it's not like he killed them for fun. He was avenging his mother.
I also love how the CooperTFN dumbass states that he wouldn't think it would be justified if the Tuskens were 100% non-sentient animals. So if Anakin actually had killed a bunch of wolves he would be a monster in the eyes of this idiot.
4709
« on: April 12, 2015, 05:17:54 AM »
It's not a case of Pokemon not being culturally prevalent as much as it "scratch" being a rather generic word commonly used outside the context of Pokemon.
4710
« on: April 12, 2015, 04:51:43 AM »
You're probably the shittiest member on this site.
put that mirror down
Don't waste that gif on something as bad and generic as "put that mirror down". That's even lower than "I know you are, but what am I?", still, only people that I dislike - Challenger were liking that reply, so that goes to show that the main reason for the support is because you people dislike me. Thing is, I also dislike you, so there's nothing going on psychologically with me right now.
Is it hard? Being an asshole?
Pages: 1 ... 155156157 158159 ... 207
|
Show Posts