Messages

3901

Off Topic / Re: Legal age limits.

« on: June 14, 2016, 12:29:47 AM »

I Heard People Saying That Its Not research Except If It Contains loveual Acts

Duno But it would definitely be: "OBSCENITY"

3902

Off Topic / Re: what do you think of holding hands

« on: June 14, 2016, 12:29:01 AM »

it's pretty gay

3903

Off Topic / Re: (Radical) Islam's Incompatibility with Democracy and Western Ideals

« on: June 14, 2016, 12:28:15 AM »

But even now many interpretations of Islam demands Islam in government as government.

But you'll be seen as an Islamophobe if you even say that.

nah, democratic values come first. now, if you frame it more as, "muslims suck because islam says this," that's probably when you'd get into muddy waters. the diff is disagreeing with a concept vs. shunning actual people. of course if someone is goin all westboro about it, then they're an starfish and there's no problem with calling them out on it

3904

Off Topic / Re: Legal age limits.

« on: June 14, 2016, 12:25:13 AM »

also a note that some states have different bar for full legal independence, in AL this is 19 for some reason and that's really stupid and dumb and should be lowered to 18 which makes sense because that's when you're supposed to be a legal adult!!!!!!!!!!!

3905

Off Topic / Re: Legal age limits.

« on: June 14, 2016, 12:23:14 AM »

is nudity research tho?

by law, yes, if it doesn't have real scientific, educational, social, artistic, etc. merit

3906

Off Topic / Re: (Radical) Islam's Incompatibility with Democracy and Western Ideals

« on: June 14, 2016, 12:21:51 AM »

religion has no place whatsoever in government. It does not matter what religion it is. Islam, Christianity, Pastafarianism... None of it.

religious groups deserve representation (obviously, i don't think that's what you're saying anyway, just figured i'd add it), but yeah, state sponsorship/promotion is a threat to freedom of religion and shouldn't happen in any effective democracy

3907

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] 50 dead, 53 injured in Orlando, FL gay club shooting

« on: June 14, 2016, 12:18:51 AM »

Probably the pursuit of some weird brand of "Equality" which only applies to a predefined set of people. They'll promote a tyrannical theology from the middle east before they will promote american nationalism because the former exclusively includes "muh brown people". It's the same reason why Islam is instantly defended after murdering of 50 members of the LGBT community in an act of cold blooded unbridled hatred, and yet Christianity is nationally ridiculed for refusing to bake a cake for two members of the LGBT community.

Convincing yourself that all people regardless of their religion and culture will all be able to get along with enough "progressiveness" is some serious mental gymnastics in itself. Middle Eastern culture and Western culture conflict at the fundamental level, we have polar opposite values.

i actually already replied to qwepir, but i'll be more specific for this. (this may not be as much a reply to rally as it is a general input to the question) it is about equality, naturally, because that's the basis of liberalism, but equality can take a lot of different forms. so to keep things simple let's just say that, when i'm referring to "equality" here, what i really mean is that all people are treated fairly and given equal value and treatment in society. i'm sure i don't have to convince anyone that social equality is important, but obviously some people (liberals) value it more than others. people might make it seem really complicated because of how arguments play out, but in reality they're driven by very simple values and biases that change what they believe to be important for their comfort and well-being.

it wouldn't ever be primarily about ideology. it's not about promoting or supporting islam or its tenets, nor supporting the actions and policies of any government, individual, or organization. it's also not necessarily about being "inclusive," "getting along," or any fairytale touchy-feely nonsense. in truth, it's about what people see as fair and just. liberals don't defend muslims because they like islam, or because they're oblivious to the facts of the world right now (that terrorist organizations are using islam as a vehicle and tool for their agendas, as a way to unify people under a common label towards a common goal), it's because shunning any group is a direct, immediate threat to social equality. if we somehow completely excluded muslims from our society, would we be safer? that's very possible, and it makes sense. would that be right? would it be fair? depends on who you ask. many say that it's justified because it's for our benefit, because it promotes our own national security, and that'd obviously be true and valid enough. it is justifiable if you believe it to be fair, and believe it to be just. if your priorities lie more so in self-preservation and order, you'll naturally reach the conclusion that the ends justify the means because personal safety in this case is more important than the treatment of others, because too much damage has been inflicted and too much more seems possible to take that risk. the reason why liberals disagree is that they're personally willing to give up order because exclusiveness naturally encourages and reinforces stigma and prejudice that fuels long-lasting social inequality, which they do not want to risk and do not want to encourage. this has very little to do with race or religion on a basic level, and everything to do with defending the rights of individuals to be treated with due process and humanity.

there's no argument here that this is a better way to think, only as best an explanation as i could think of. these differences occur because of differences in how people weigh their values. i'm guilty of neglecting to acknowledge this even in this thread. i've said that the only reason why people are negative towards muslims is because of fear, and that it's as simple as that, which is to imply some kind of immature irrationality or just a failure to think thoroughly enough to prevent their attitudes. of course, this is intolerant and unfair, and a lazy conclusion drawn because i simply don't share the same mindset and priorities. people are rational, and reach their conclusions based on evaluations of their own feelings and what matters to them, and it's not always possible to know what those factors are, but they're always there.

This is a Yahoo news report so I would be a little skeptical of it but it seems legitimate so far
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html

Among other things, the most important parts of the article are:

• The shooter was a regular at the nightclub and often drank there, coming once or twice a month for at least 3 years.
• The shooter used several homoloveual dating apps and allegedly asked one of his male colleagues out.
• The shooter said he was affiliated with several different groups such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and CIA.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

very strange. something must've happened to make him flip the Heck out in that case

3908

Off Topic / Re: Legal age limits.

« on: June 13, 2016, 10:18:49 PM »

five year olds that would drink themselves to death otherwise? Teens who shouldn't have kids?
There's reasons for limits. Ones that frustrate the limited people, but they're there and usually good. The particular number that is the barrier is what I'm pointing out. Why is it 16 to do the thing and 18 to watch others do it? That's my primary example. It just strikes me as really odd. Maybe it's a federal vs state law, since the fact that it's illegal to give research to minors is a federal thing and the age of consent is a state thing?
I am sad that there is a lack of serious discussion here... :(

both are up to state legislation i would think. the federal government tried regulating research before and it didn't work too well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_research#United_States

more reading on some federal law on the matter (mostly child research legislation)
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity

3909

Off Topic / Re: Taya's special interest and Kink Emporium (Growing userlist!)

« on: June 13, 2016, 08:11:13 PM »

Good idea

Any offsite suggestions? I've tried googling a few but haven't had much luck

google forms might work

3910

Games / Re: ROBLOX Thread ⱽ³⋅⁶ - Powering Imagination

« on: June 13, 2016, 08:08:43 PM »

.dts can be imported in blender.

addendum: with this

https://forum.blockland.us/index.php?topic=281071.0

3911

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] 50 dead, 53 injured in Orlando, FL gay club shooting

« on: June 13, 2016, 08:06:35 PM »

Maybe I missread what you said idk

as someone who comes from a christian background, i don't see anything wrong with what he said, that's exactly what the archetypal model christian would do

3912

Forum Games / Re: YOU CRINGE YOU LOSE

« on: June 13, 2016, 06:15:13 PM »

I see it fine? It's the yellow scientist thing from undertale dressed as a minion taking a selfie
You know what it's better off that you don't see it anyways

if you press F5 on the page it'll probably go away

3913

Off Topic / Re: Have you noticed how the media is keeping us separated?

« on: June 13, 2016, 05:17:13 PM »

i only trust Humble Water Filter Merchant

https://vt.tumblr.com/tumblr_o4w6grXpG61thspgb.mp4

this is my favorite video

3914

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Heavily armed Ind. man arrested on way to L.A. Pride parade

« on: June 13, 2016, 05:09:03 PM »

* otto-san carries 20 tons of explosives and an entire military jet on my back, wielding an improvised quad-gun fashioned from several fully automatic rifles

Haha what seems to be the problem officer, just going to see the Burning man, as they call it haha

what a forgetn guy lmao

3915

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] 50 dead, 53 injured in Orlando, FL gay club shooting

« on: June 13, 2016, 04:51:41 PM »

Probably because the majority of Muslims aren't calling for Shariah law in the US, while Christians are more than glad to try and codify their religious beliefs into our legal system.

well, christians are a power majority in the US, so that might not be the fairest comparison. either way, i don't agree with legislating heavily under religion, because you can't really have freedom of religion if the state is deciding for you. which i'm guessing is why a lot of muslims apparently advocate for shariah law that only applies to them? seems a bit unnecessary to me since i imagine you could just live by your own standards instead of complicating justice, but i'm also not incredibly familiar with the religious reasoning for shariah law