Search:

Following this logic ladder I think I can say Abortions are objectively good because they send the fetuses to heaven before they have a chance to lose out on salvation during life! I mean helping others get to heaven sounds like a good thing. So if you are already doomed to hell for your sins, the best way you can help your fellow man is by killing as many babies as you can find before they do something that would get them sent to hell!

Following this logic ladder I think I can say Abortions are objectively good because they send the fetuses to heaven before they have a chance to lose out on salvation during life! I mean helping others get to heaven sounds like a good thing. So if you are already doomed to hell for your sins, the best way you can help your fellow man is by killing as many babies as you can find before they do something that would get them sent to hell!

[QUOTE=Mike;916474]You make a lot of valid points. The Blind are they at fault for walking passed someone passed out on the ground and not helping them? No they are not. The same goes for salvation. Jesus charged us with a task to go out and spread the word. In your case you are not blind, but it is your choice to accept Jesus into your heart or not. The Bible teaches man kind to help out one another.[/QUOTE]

alright so again I am curious where the cutoff point is. If I've never heard of jesus then I'm fine. But what if I've just heard his name but that's it? Or just a couple of stories about him? or a lot about him but not the rest of the bible? etc.

And isn't it kind of paradoxical that if nobody ever teaches me about jesus, then I am good to go, but as soon as they tell me about him I have to believe or I'm screwed? Like, missionary work is essentially cruel then because you're taking salvation AWAY from people.

Originally Posted by Mike

You make a lot of valid points. The Blind are they at fault for walking passed someone passed out on the ground and not helping them? No they are not. The same goes for salvation. Jesus charged us with a task to go out and spread the word. In your case you are not blind, but it is your choice to accept Jesus into your heart or not. The Bible teaches man kind to help out one another.

alright so again I am curious where the cutoff point is. If I've never heard of jesus then I'm fine. But what if I've just heard his name but that's it? Or just a couple of stories about him? or a lot about him but not the rest of the bible? etc.

And isn't it kind of paradoxical that if nobody ever teaches me about jesus, then I am good to go, but as soon as they tell me about him I have to believe or I'm screwed? Like, missionary work is essentially cruel then because you're taking salvation AWAY from people.

Your penis

Your penis

Like out of curiosity are these islanders all going to hell even though they don�t know of Christianity? Do you consider this guy a hero? [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Chau[/url]

Like out of curiosity are these islanders all going to hell even though they don�t know of Christianity? Do you consider this guy a hero? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Chau

[QUOTE=Mike;916314]I get that. I do believe in God you do not. That is your right. But I respect you because you talk with Intelligence. You try to submit facts not BS. I still think we are on a similar page. Unless you do not agree with what you have already posted. I do not believe that is the case here.

[COLOR="#00FF00"]Now on to the punish. that goes into the Salvation is not achieved by works alone. It is a matter of faith. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

So why didn�t Jesus show up earlier? And why did he only show up in one part of the world? It seems pretty unfair, for example, that native Americans should have to burn in hell for another 1500 years before they even get exposed to Christianity.

I think a possible answer will be that those who were never exposed to god�s word are exempted from needing to believe, but this leads to a followup question: what counts as me being exposed enough? I mean if a missionary that can�t even speak my language just hands me a Bible that I don�t know how to read, would that be enough? So now I go to hell for poor linguistic skills?

Originally Posted by Mike

I get that. I do believe in God you do not. That is your right. But I respect you because you talk with Intelligence. You try to submit facts not BS. I still think we are on a similar page. Unless you do not agree with what you have already posted. I do not believe that is the case here.

Now on to the punish. that goes into the Salvation is not achieved by works alone. It is a matter of faith.

So why didn�t Jesus show up earlier? And why did he only show up in one part of the world? It seems pretty unfair, for example, that native Americans should have to burn in hell for another 1500 years before they even get exposed to Christianity.

I think a possible answer will be that those who were never exposed to god�s word are exempted from needing to believe, but this leads to a followup question: what counts as me being exposed enough? I mean if a missionary that can�t even speak my language just hands me a Bible that I don�t know how to read, would that be enough? So now I go to hell for poor linguistic skills?

[QUOTE=Mike;916240]Easy Thru Prayer. I used to be a hard core Anti Bible person. I would laugh when others gave me this exact same answer. But until I truly stopped fighting and accepted God and just sat and talked to him a lot of the Fog went away and clarity came. the answers are always in the word of God. It is the crazy religions people trying to control others mis-using Gods word to further there own wants and needs that have dissuaded people into not following Gods word.[/QUOTE]

can you describe what hearing God's word is like? i assume it's not like hearing morgan freeman randomly start talking inside your head?

Originally Posted by Mike

Easy Thru Prayer. I used to be a hard core Anti Bible person. I would laugh when others gave me this exact same answer. But until I truly stopped fighting and accepted God and just sat and talked to him a lot of the Fog went away and clarity came. the answers are always in the word of God. It is the crazy religions people trying to control others mis-using Gods word to further there own wants and needs that have dissuaded people into not following Gods word.

can you describe what hearing God's word is like? i assume it's not like hearing morgan freeman randomly start talking inside your head?

[QUOTE=aamirus;916236]are themselves BS
[/QUOTE]

to clarify: since they are essentially just the product of greedy/power-hungry humans using the idea of God to give themselves power over others

Originally Posted by aamirus

are themselves BS

to clarify: since they are essentially just the product of greedy/power-hungry humans using the idea of God to give themselves power over others

[QUOTE=Mike;916232]True, You can. But then if you try and make God's word what you want it to mean are you truly Reading it? Is it not to read something, Read it in the way it was Written? (The way the Author (in this case God) Wrote it)[/QUOTE]

okay but how do we know what God meant? You say read it in the way it was written by God but since it's just transcribed and translated and interpreted by humans, how can we actually do that?

Originally Posted by Mike

True, You can. But then if you try and make God's word what you want it to mean are you truly Reading it? Is it not to read something, Read it in the way it was Written? (The way the Author (in this case God) Wrote it)

okay but how do we know what God meant? You say read it in the way it was written by God but since it's just transcribed and translated and interpreted by humans, how can we actually do that?

[QUOTE=aamirus;916230]to play devil's advocate though, christianity is one of the dominant religions today specifically because of the two things you're complaining about. Because of popes, archbishops, kings, emperors, etc. pushing it for the sake of "god has given us the right to rule, so therefore all you peasants must listen to us, and if you don't you're a heretic and will be burned!"[/QUOTE]

i mean [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI[/url] and [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII[/url]
should be enough for anybody to see that these religious leaders are a farce.

(the first one bribed and murdered his way to the papacy and the 2nd one created the anglican church just so he could divorce his wife cuz he wanted a male heir)... both are considered to be divine rulers by their respective christian sects

for me that seems like it should be enough for anybody to see organized religion itself as a farce. Not to say that there is no god or higher power, but just that the myriad of organized religions we have are themselves BS



ok rant aside, for anybody who is a roman catholic specifically, i'd be curious how it's possible to believe the pope is god's chosen speaker whilst also acknowledging that historically most of the popes are SERIOUS sinners

Originally Posted by aamirus

to play devil's advocate though, christianity is one of the dominant religions today specifically because of the two things you're complaining about. Because of popes, archbishops, kings, emperors, etc. pushing it for the sake of "god has given us the right to rule, so therefore all you peasants must listen to us, and if you don't you're a heretic and will be burned!"

i mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII
should be enough for anybody to see that these religious leaders are a farce.

(the first one bribed and murdered his way to the papacy and the 2nd one created the anglican church just so he could divorce his wife cuz he wanted a male heir)... both are considered to be divine rulers by their respective christian sects

for me that seems like it should be enough for anybody to see organized religion itself as a farce. Not to say that there is no god or higher power, but just that the myriad of organized religions we have are themselves BS



ok rant aside, for anybody who is a roman catholic specifically, i'd be curious how it's possible to believe the pope is god's chosen speaker whilst also acknowledging that historically most of the popes are SERIOUS sinners

[QUOTE=SuperJack;916225]

It's those that abuse their position and abuse the books to twist them for their own selfish desire that I have issues with. Also those who try to force their beliefs on others.

[/QUOTE]

to play devil's advocate though, christianity is one of the dominant religions today specifically because of the two things you're complaining about. Because of popes, archbishops, kings, emperors, etc. pushing it for the sake of "god has given us the right to rule, so therefore all you peasants must listen to us, and if you don't you're a heretic and will be burned!"

Originally Posted by SuperJack

It's those that abuse their position and abuse the books to twist them for their own selfish desire that I have issues with. Also those who try to force their beliefs on others.

to play devil's advocate though, christianity is one of the dominant religions today specifically because of the two things you're complaining about. Because of popes, archbishops, kings, emperors, etc. pushing it for the sake of "god has given us the right to rule, so therefore all you peasants must listen to us, and if you don't you're a heretic and will be burned!"

[QUOTE=Mike;916223]But people fail to truly read it.[/QUOTE]

let's ignore the bible and just examine this statement. What is it supposed to mean? Can't I say this about almost any text and then try to argue that it (that text) means whatever I want it to mean?

Originally Posted by Mike

But people fail to truly read it.

let's ignore the bible and just examine this statement. What is it supposed to mean? Can't I say this about almost any text and then try to argue that it (that text) means whatever I want it to mean?

closed for judging

closed for judging

like every loser hacker on sc2mafia, why doesn't donald just make himself a smurf account? Then he can play whackamole with the twitter mods

like every loser hacker on sc2mafia, why doesn't donald just make himself a smurf account? Then he can play whackamole with the twitter mods

[QUOTE=Helz;916012]I am not sure I understand what you mean. The election results were pretty blatant on December 4th.

There were lots of protests arguing for stuff like 'Stop the Steal' and such. They actually started in early November but thats kind of erroneous given the subject of this thread.[/QUOTE]

From the rioter's pov, trump didn't officially lose until the day of the riots when congress certified the votes

Originally Posted by Helz

I am not sure I understand what you mean. The election results were pretty blatant on December 4th.

There were lots of protests arguing for stuff like 'Stop the Steal' and such. They actually started in early November but thats kind of erroneous given the subject of this thread.

From the rioter's pov, trump didn't officially lose until the day of the riots when congress certified the votes

but for the capitol riots, the time since trump lost to them was 0 days. That was the whole point lol. Why would they bother rioting during all the time they believed trump had won?

but for the capitol riots, the time since trump lost to them was 0 days. That was the whole point lol. Why would they bother rioting during all the time they believed trump had won?

search engine spiders are on every site they can find

search engine spiders are on every site they can find

[COLOR="#201f1f"]..[/COLOR]







































































































[B]</butishtmlcoolerorbbcode>[/B]

..

[QUOTE=OzyWho;915877]As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, plurality and condercet are both the same in the sense of mandatory lynch at EOD.

Me personally I'm not a believer in condercet. As much as I'm not a fan of a 3 way tie with 2 votes on each at EoD1 - I'm not confident that condercet improves that scenario. If anything I think it's the opposite and is similar to yzb's voting system where the scum could vote each other if the numbers allow it - making it in my eyes even less informative than a 3 way tie EoD1 with just ~50% of votes present.[/QUOTE]

i didn't mean condorcet. I think voss expressed interest in other kinds of new voting systems too

Originally Posted by OzyWho

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, plurality and condercet are both the same in the sense of mandatory lynch at EOD.

Me personally I'm not a believer in condercet. As much as I'm not a fan of a 3 way tie with 2 votes on each at EoD1 - I'm not confident that condercet improves that scenario. If anything I think it's the opposite and is similar to yzb's voting system where the scum could vote each other if the numbers allow it - making it in my eyes even less informative than a 3 way tie EoD1 with just ~50% of votes present.

i didn't mean condorcet. I think voss expressed interest in other kinds of new voting systems too

no notification

it does show up in the quotes tab on the profile tho, so maybe you're seeing that and mistakenly assuming that's what the notification is referring to

no notification

it does show up in the quotes tab on the profile tho, so maybe you're seeing that and mistakenly assuming that's what the notification is referring to

[QUOTE=Helz;915885]I never really thought about it until today but why do I get a quote notification when I quote someone else? Is that intentional?[/QUOTE]

test

Originally Posted by Helz

I never really thought about it until today but why do I get a quote notification when I quote someone else? Is that intentional?

test

well it's not perfectly attuned to what you wanted but i guess this works
[url]https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/misc.php?do=vsatpomy[/url]

well it's not perfectly attuned to what you wanted but i guess this works
https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/misc.php?do=vsatpomy

Ozy you should talk to [MENTION=6527]Voss[/MENTION] he’s very interested in finding new voting systems that might be better than the existing/usual options

Ozy you should talk to @Voss he’s very interested in finding new voting systems that might be better than the existing/usual options

How does connect 5 compare with connect 4? 🤪

How does connect 5 compare with connect 4? 🤪

I just don’t understand why the standing variants are so much more popular. They are OBJECTIVELY worse. Like, more effort switching attachments/modes to reach hard to reach places, more effort to avoid getting the wire tangled, more effort to drag the damn thing around the house.. I just can’t think of one pro and yet somehow they’re so much more popular

I just don’t understand why the standing variants are so much more popular. They are OBJECTIVELY worse. Like, more effort switching attachments/modes to reach hard to reach places, more effort to avoid getting the wire tangled, more effort to drag the damn thing around the house.. I just can’t think of one pro and yet somehow they’re so much more popular

[QUOTE=rumox;915769]I absolutely wouldn't be surprised of destructive riots if Trump won. I think anyone who tries to confidently argue there wouldn't have been is being pretty dishonest.[/QUOTE]

I don’t see why losing to trump the 2nd time would be THAT much worse than losing the first time. So I can agree just like the first time there would be “not my President” marches everywhere but I just have a hard time believing in the violence conspiracy theories without evidence. I mean a key issue between left and right is guns and frankly the left just aren’t as in to guns.

Now, anarchists who would have started shit no matter who won? That I can buy into as it just makes sense they’d try to ride the wave whatever the wave was.

But nonetheless there’s a key difference here. Your trumpy voters felt right in their insurrection because they were convinced that the election was stolen from them. Can’t even really blame someone who thinks they are just defending their country right? But if trump had won, you would NOT have the majority of democrat voters thinking that they’d been swindled, cheated, etc. Maybe largely cuz Biden just wouldn’t be a little bitch like trump was. Would there be some salty fucks? Sure. But I still haven’t heard a reason why they would act significantly more violently than they did after Hillary lost

Originally Posted by rumox

I absolutely wouldn't be surprised of destructive riots if Trump won. I think anyone who tries to confidently argue there wouldn't have been is being pretty dishonest.

I don’t see why losing to trump the 2nd time would be THAT much worse than losing the first time. So I can agree just like the first time there would be “not my President” marches everywhere but I just have a hard time believing in the violence conspiracy theories without evidence. I mean a key issue between left and right is guns and frankly the left just aren’t as in to guns.

Now, anarchists who would have started shit no matter who won? That I can buy into as it just makes sense they’d try to ride the wave whatever the wave was.

But nonetheless there’s a key difference here. Your trumpy voters felt right in their insurrection because they were convinced that the election was stolen from them. Can’t even really blame someone who thinks they are just defending their country right? But if trump had won, you would NOT have the majority of democrat voters thinking that they’d been swindled, cheated, etc. Maybe largely cuz Biden just wouldn’t be a little bitch like trump was. Would there be some salty fucks? Sure. But I still haven’t heard a reason why they would act significantly more violently than they did after Hillary lost

[QUOTE=Helz;915341]No. Not at all. You asked what the difference was between the Hillary loss and hypothetical Biden loss.
My statement has nothing to do with the 'raid of the US capitol to stop democracy.'

But yeah; I dont care for the media but from what I understand there was hardcore groups of people set up to riot if trump won. When people set up with firebombs and still use them after they win I would call that terrorism in favor of the democratic party.

I think that Republicans will be worse in the coming years. But fuck off with your efforts to put words in my mouth. I have no problem crossing lines and being emphatically clear about it as I do it.[/QUOTE]

Could you cite your source on firebombs and plan to revolt if Biden lost?

Originally Posted by Helz

No. Not at all. You asked what the difference was between the Hillary loss and hypothetical Biden loss.
My statement has nothing to do with the 'raid of the US capitol to stop democracy.'

But yeah; I dont care for the media but from what I understand there was hardcore groups of people set up to riot if trump won. When people set up with firebombs and still use them after they win I would call that terrorism in favor of the democratic party.

I think that Republicans will be worse in the coming years. But fuck off with your efforts to put words in my mouth. I have no problem crossing lines and being emphatically clear about it as I do it.

Could you cite your source on firebombs and plan to revolt if Biden lost?

[QUOTE=OzyWho;915750]Who on this site gives Reputation in order to send out anonymous sarcastic comments?
I know it's either [MENTION=8508]SuperJack[/MENTION] or [MENTION=29585]aamirus[/MENTION] .
:thinking:

Is it possible to view old Reputation comments without receiving a new one? I promise I can't find a way. NotLikeThis[/QUOTE]

I almost never give out rep unless someone gives it to me first, mainly because I forget it exists

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Who on this site gives Reputation in order to send out anonymous sarcastic comments?
I know it's either @SuperJack or @aamirus .


Is it possible to view old Reputation comments without receiving a new one? I promise I can't find a way.

I almost never give out rep unless someone gives it to me first, mainly because I forget it exists

[QUOTE=SuperJack;915140]As an adult, I do adult things and get stupidly excited over trivial things.

The most recent being a vacuum cleaner.
My family have used Dyson for as long as I can remember.
I always thought they where the best, and maybe at one point they where and all their adverts and marketing makes it seem like so.

After moving to our own place we stuck with Dyson, either my mum's old one or buying a second hand one. We never gave it much thought.

But now I'm even more adultman I've done a lot of Research, and I believe I've just fallen into the evil claws of marketings and aware of dysons dodgy attempts to twist the law to benifit them. since it's time for me to buy a new vacuum we've come to a new choise.

The opinions and reviews all tend to point to Miele, also recommend to go bagged as that combination offers the best equipment. We also needed something more suitable for carpets and this is our result.

[url]https://www.miele.co.uk/e/cylinder-vacuum-cleaner-complete-c3-cat-and-dog-pro-powerline-sgef3-11085190-p[/url]


[Img] https://media.miele.com/images/2000015/200001550/20000155076.png[/img]
Buying new and direct. I will let you know how the equipment is.

Let us know your thoughts on vacuums and what you use for your home[/QUOTE]

Yup dysons are terrible and the rollable vacuums with hose like in your picture are easily the best kind. Standing vacuums are terrible in comparison

Originally Posted by SuperJack

As an adult, I do adult things and get stupidly excited over trivial things.

The most recent being a vacuum cleaner.
My family have used Dyson for as long as I can remember.
I always thought they where the best, and maybe at one point they where and all their adverts and marketing makes it seem like so.

After moving to our own place we stuck with Dyson, either my mum's old one or buying a second hand one. We never gave it much thought.

But now I'm even more adultman I've done a lot of Research, and I believe I've just fallen into the evil claws of marketings and aware of dysons dodgy attempts to twist the law to benifit them. since it's time for me to buy a new vacuum we've come to a new choise.

The opinions and reviews all tend to point to Miele, also recommend to go bagged as that combination offers the best equipment. We also needed something more suitable for carpets and this is our result.

https://www.miele.co.uk/e/cylinder-v...ef3-11085190-p



Buying new and direct. I will let you know how the equipment is.

Let us know your thoughts on vacuums and what you use for your home

Yup dysons are terrible and the rollable vacuums with hose like in your picture are easily the best kind. Standing vacuums are terrible in comparison

[QUOTE=Helz;915333]Literal rioters with bombs and a 4 year international campaign generating hate as inequality[/QUOTE]

So is the general defense of raiding the us capitol and LITERALLY trying to stop democracy that �BLM was bad too�? Hence democrats would have been same/worse! Because BLM = all of the Biden voters?

Originally Posted by Helz

Literal rioters with bombs and a 4 year international campaign generating hate as inequality

So is the general defense of raiding the us capitol and LITERALLY trying to stop democracy that �BLM was bad too�? Hence democrats would have been same/worse! Because BLM = all of the Biden voters?

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;915314]Oh now having read Helz’s post I understand why you mentioned the Trump reaction although Helz isn’t trying to convince himself the reaction in 2016 was ‘better’ than the Biden reaction, I read that as him saying the Bidenite riots if Trump had won would’ve been a lot worse than the Trumpite riot we had this month.[/QUOTE]

Why would the Biden losing reaction be significantly worse than Hillary losing?

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

Oh now having read Helz’s post I understand why you mentioned the Trump reaction although Helz isn’t trying to convince himself the reaction in 2016 was ‘better’ than the Biden reaction, I read that as him saying the Bidenite riots if Trump had won would’ve been a lot worse than the Trumpite riot we had this month.

Why would the Biden losing reaction be significantly worse than Hillary losing?

Helz not sure why you�re using BLM 2020 to somehow convince yourself the Biden 2020 reaction is �better� than the trump 2016 reaction. An obvious false equivalency but whatever.

Additionally, these people didn�t just riot, they attempted to forcibly stop congress from certifying the election. And for awhile they SUCCEEDED!

And the thread title is clearly sarcastic...

Helz not sure why you�re using BLM 2020 to somehow convince yourself the Biden 2020 reaction is �better� than the trump 2016 reaction. An obvious false equivalency but whatever.

Additionally, these people didn�t just riot, they attempted to forcibly stop congress from certifying the election. And for awhile they SUCCEEDED!

And the thread title is clearly sarcastic...

[url]https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/sc2/t/main-thread-error-when-joining-or-making-lobby/19668/568[/url]

Just have to wait.

https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/sc...obby/19668/568

Just have to wait.

[QUOTE=Stealthbomber16;913542]I've already watched this series in its entirety. It's wild.[/QUOTE]

There are a bunch of videos of trolling them which are funny but I love this series because you actually get to see them in action

Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16

I've already watched this series in its entirety. It's wild.

There are a bunch of videos of trolling them which are funny but I love this series because you actually get to see them in action

[QUOTE=Stealthbomber16;913201]We�ve been trying to reach you concerning your vehicles extended warranty.[/QUOTE]

[url]https://youtu.be/le71yVPh4uk[/url]

Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16

We�ve been trying to reach you concerning your vehicles extended warranty.

https://youtu.be/le71yVPh4uk

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;912035]It's hard to say [I]no[/I] to that, since it can't be bad once it's done. However, it may not be very useful. It is rather rarely needed to go dig into the Archive, and when it is needed, people just do it; that's what the search tool is for. That being said, if some good souls wish to include a list of iterations in their setup pages, they're free to do so. As you said, it's not much more than a slight inconvenience to do. It's just not something I'd put in the "priorities" list or in the "must do" one.[/QUOTE]

Don�t bother trying to populate old games but from now on it would be very low effort to do it for future games.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

It's hard to say no to that, since it can't be bad once it's done. However, it may not be very useful. It is rather rarely needed to go dig into the Archive, and when it is needed, people just do it; that's what the search tool is for. That being said, if some good souls wish to include a list of iterations in their setup pages, they're free to do so. As you said, it's not much more than a slight inconvenience to do. It's just not something I'd put in the "priorities" list or in the "must do" one.

Don�t bother trying to populate old games but from now on it would be very low effort to do it for future games.

Don�t lie mm you just made this thread as an excuse to listen to the North Korean anthem again

Don�t lie mm you just made this thread as an excuse to listen to the North Korean anthem again

Actually mm I kind of think the niche our site has is letting people be somewhat rude. We have to draw the line somewhere but I think we�re one of the most lenient sites around and while that causes some people to leave, it�s also why our core base stays?

Actually mm I kind of think the niche our site has is letting people be somewhat rude. We have to draw the line somewhere but I think we�re one of the most lenient sites around and while that causes some people to leave, it�s also why our core base stays?

[QUOTE=Oberon;911420]This thread should honestly just be closed at this point imo[/QUOTE]
Agreed, closed

Originally Posted by Oberon

This thread should honestly just be closed at this point imo

Agreed, closed

So since I had to learn about �panchira� in this thread I�ll link what I was unlucky to learn about last year:

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia[/url]

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia[/url]

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia[/url]

While I think the first two are icky, pedo is a whole nuther level because there isn�t a time you�re supposed to be attracted to people that young.

How did I learn this shit? Cuz someone who I called a pedo was super offended cuz he�s just into teens not children...

So since I had to learn about �panchira� in this thread I�ll link what I was unlucky to learn about last year:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

While I think the first two are icky, pedo is a whole nuther level because there isn�t a time you�re supposed to be attracted to people that young.

How did I learn this shit? Cuz someone who I called a pedo was super offended cuz he�s just into teens not children...

Honestly I really didn�t need to ever learn the term panchira and I hate that I now do

Honestly I really didn�t need to ever learn the term panchira and I hate that I now do

[QUOTE=Oberon;910679]how to get bregnant[/QUOTE]

Pregante

Originally Posted by Oberon

how to get bregnant

Pregante

[QUOTE=rumox;910823]Had countless places simply referred as "the spot". This is where we would smoke weed. Bush walk area, schools, motorbike track area, airport construction area, hill lookouts, and so on.


I was a grade A gremlin of a kid tbh.[/QUOTE]

At my high school we had two spots like that we would go to drink if there were no parentless houses available. Just like 50 feet off the road in the woods a little, we thought we were so adventurous lol

Originally Posted by rumox

Had countless places simply referred as "the spot". This is where we would smoke weed. Bush walk area, schools, motorbike track area, airport construction area, hill lookouts, and so on.


I was a grade A gremlin of a kid tbh.

At my high school we had two spots like that we would go to drink if there were no parentless houses available. Just like 50 feet off the road in the woods a little, we thought we were so adventurous lol

One thing I discovered pretty late is how big of a deal hydration is. Some may scoff at this but I will say if you�re not drinking at least 64oz of water a day, then dehydration might be a big part of the like, slumps where you�re feeling down and don�t want to do anything but not sure why. Anyway I�ve learned if I start to feel that way to force myself to go glug some water and it hasn�t failed me yet.

One thing I discovered pretty late is how big of a deal hydration is. Some may scoff at this but I will say if you�re not drinking at least 64oz of water a day, then dehydration might be a big part of the like, slumps where you�re feeling down and don�t want to do anything but not sure why. Anyway I�ve learned if I start to feel that way to force myself to go glug some water and it hasn�t failed me yet.

[QUOTE=Oberon;909699]youre being kinda mean guys lol. how would you feel if i went around spamming some dumb shit you said?[/QUOTE]

is that what that quote spam is from? you said it in an fm?

Originally Posted by Oberon

youre being kinda mean guys lol. how would you feel if i went around spamming some dumb shit you said?

is that what that quote spam is from? you said it in an fm?

[QUOTE=yzb25;909700]I think the issue here is you're regarding the entirety of the culture at once. I find aspects of christian and islamic culture deeply deplorable, but if, for whatever reason, I find myself in a church (making a delivery or smth who knows) and someone asks me to take my hat off, I won't thrust my finger into the air and declare it my right not to take my hand off because christian culture is unworthy of my respect. I will just take my hat off, and save the finger thrusting for when they try to take sex ed out of schools or what have you. My point is I think cultures are entitled to the same respect, on the condition the culture doesn't infringe your values. And in the latter case you just don't respect those aspects of the culture. You don't need to dismiss the culture entirely. Whether cultures are equal is irrelevant to this principle.



Without sounding too dramatic, the US and Canada have been trying to eradicate and trivialize all aspects of Native American culture for 100s of years, because it is the stain at the core of their national identities and undermines the legitimacy of their nations. What they are gong through is the "denial" phase of their own genocides. Now, when ppl use the word genocide they imagine something quite extravagant. I don't mean it that way. There was no central mass murder of the Native Americans (though there were a few smaller ones). However, continual and deliberate eradication of a culture also falls under the definition of "genocide". Canada was forcing Native American kids to go to boarding schools where they'd be goaded by the teachers to reject their Native American identity up until the 80's (quite recent!). Native American sites and cultural features get trivialized or desecrated to undermine their importance (like carving the heads of presidents into Mt. Rushmore, which was a sacred site to some Natives), etc.

I presume there are legitimate concerns this business with the "Washington Redskins" is an extension of that. afaik, this isn't the first time they've been asked to change the name. Even if you think it's absurd to view this as part of genocide denial, I return to the above point - this is also effectively refusing to take your hat off in church. It is not an infringement of your values to change the name, unless you think you truly believe you have a sacred, untouchable right to whatever name you please. If ppl's personal shit can be reasonably respected, then just do it.



Meh, my views are probably the extreme ones. I presume most ppl would disagree with me. Maybe it should be discussed in a separate thread because it's only tangentially related to the original point. To keep it short, yes I hate the idea of employers having precedent to fire workers for their beliefs, even if only in extreme cases. And honestly, ppl can have some utterly batshit awful views of the world and still be otherwise agreeable / competent workers. We have to live with ppl together in a society, and while most of them at least fully acknowledge the holocaust (in our countries) they still hold some gross views that you're going to have to learn to cope with.[/QUOTE]

I think you go too far. It's a tricky balancing act obviously - fire anybody who gives the slightest hint of bigotry and you're going too far in that direction. But don't fire anybody for their beliefs? Your workers reflect you and if you won't fire somebody who is openly blatantly bigoted then it implies you are okay with that, and you're going to pay the price by people rightfully boycotting you/your company. At the end of the day, money talks, and most people are replaceable, so if you out yourself as a bigot then you're gonna get shown the door. That's not even a morality thing, it's just good business.

Originally Posted by yzb25

I think the issue here is you're regarding the entirety of the culture at once. I find aspects of christian and islamic culture deeply deplorable, but if, for whatever reason, I find myself in a church (making a delivery or smth who knows) and someone asks me to take my hat off, I won't thrust my finger into the air and declare it my right not to take my hand off because christian culture is unworthy of my respect. I will just take my hat off, and save the finger thrusting for when they try to take sex ed out of schools or what have you. My point is I think cultures are entitled to the same respect, on the condition the culture doesn't infringe your values. And in the latter case you just don't respect those aspects of the culture. You don't need to dismiss the culture entirely. Whether cultures are equal is irrelevant to this principle.



Without sounding too dramatic, the US and Canada have been trying to eradicate and trivialize all aspects of Native American culture for 100s of years, because it is the stain at the core of their national identities and undermines the legitimacy of their nations. What they are gong through is the "denial" phase of their own genocides. Now, when ppl use the word genocide they imagine something quite extravagant. I don't mean it that way. There was no central mass murder of the Native Americans (though there were a few smaller ones). However, continual and deliberate eradication of a culture also falls under the definition of "genocide". Canada was forcing Native American kids to go to boarding schools where they'd be goaded by the teachers to reject their Native American identity up until the 80's (quite recent!). Native American sites and cultural features get trivialized or desecrated to undermine their importance (like carving the heads of presidents into Mt. Rushmore, which was a sacred site to some Natives), etc.

I presume there are legitimate concerns this business with the "Washington Redskins" is an extension of that. afaik, this isn't the first time they've been asked to change the name. Even if you think it's absurd to view this as part of genocide denial, I return to the above point - this is also effectively refusing to take your hat off in church. It is not an infringement of your values to change the name, unless you think you truly believe you have a sacred, untouchable right to whatever name you please. If ppl's personal shit can be reasonably respected, then just do it.



Meh, my views are probably the extreme ones. I presume most ppl would disagree with me. Maybe it should be discussed in a separate thread because it's only tangentially related to the original point. To keep it short, yes I hate the idea of employers having precedent to fire workers for their beliefs, even if only in extreme cases. And honestly, ppl can have some utterly batshit awful views of the world and still be otherwise agreeable / competent workers. We have to live with ppl together in a society, and while most of them at least fully acknowledge the holocaust (in our countries) they still hold some gross views that you're going to have to learn to cope with.

I think you go too far. It's a tricky balancing act obviously - fire anybody who gives the slightest hint of bigotry and you're going too far in that direction. But don't fire anybody for their beliefs? Your workers reflect you and if you won't fire somebody who is openly blatantly bigoted then it implies you are okay with that, and you're going to pay the price by people rightfully boycotting you/your company. At the end of the day, money talks, and most people are replaceable, so if you out yourself as a bigot then you're gonna get shown the door. That's not even a morality thing, it's just good business.

Once, twice, no, yes. Sorry, ass-eating is required. Unfathomable amounts of ass resides in storytelling. Marshmallow Marshall [B]licks[/B]

Once, twice, no, yes. Sorry, ass-eating is required. Unfathomable amounts of ass resides in storytelling. Marshmallow Marshall licks

uh so you murdered voss?

uh so you murdered voss?

poor rumox lol

poor rumox lol

isn't that a false equivalency though? If you're not into bestiality and just do the furry thing for fun, then that's your choice. You don't choose to be black, female, gay, etc. Looking down on someone for their own choice is not the same as looking down on them for something they were born with.

Now, if it's not a choice and you're legitimately sexually attracted to animals, a reason that I think it is similar to pedophilia is that most of those animals aren't exactly going to be able to give an informed consent...

isn't that a false equivalency though? If you're not into bestiality and just do the furry thing for fun, then that's your choice. You don't choose to be black, female, gay, etc. Looking down on someone for their own choice is not the same as looking down on them for something they were born with.

Now, if it's not a choice and you're legitimately sexually attracted to animals, a reason that I think it is similar to pedophilia is that most of those animals aren't exactly going to be able to give an informed consent...

cancel culture isn't new. It's just kind of shifted from the majority cancelling minorities to now the minorities cancelling the majority.

I mean, having to fear getting "cancelled" by being accused of racism and then losing your job etc. as a white person is not a great thing, sure
but it's not quite as bad as having to fear getting "cancelled" for having black skin and getting thrown into slavery.

So, I would frame it in a positive light as at least we are making some "progress", right? Ideally the effects of cancelling keep getting smaller as time goes on, but I think it's disingenuous to frame it as a new thing that's recently gotten worse. It's gotten worse for some people but much better for others.

cancel culture isn't new. It's just kind of shifted from the majority cancelling minorities to now the minorities cancelling the majority.

I mean, having to fear getting "cancelled" by being accused of racism and then losing your job etc. as a white person is not a great thing, sure
but it's not quite as bad as having to fear getting "cancelled" for having black skin and getting thrown into slavery.

So, I would frame it in a positive light as at least we are making some "progress", right? Ideally the effects of cancelling keep getting smaller as time goes on, but I think it's disingenuous to frame it as a new thing that's recently gotten worse. It's gotten worse for some people but much better for others.