|
Post by kaoru on Jul 30, 2016 17:47:03 GMT -5
Stick whatever you want in each other, married or not. Voorhees-sama, are you feeling alright? (ó﹏ò。)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 18:58:15 GMT -5
What. It's not like I want teenagers to STOP having premarital sex. Then what would I do with my free time?
|
|
|
Post by JDarkside on Jul 30, 2016 20:10:34 GMT -5
I want a tall, confident woman to stick her boot wearing foot on my face. Then grind the heel.
|
|
|
Post by The Great Klaid on Jul 30, 2016 23:24:30 GMT -5
What. It's not like I want teenagers to STOP having premarital sex. Then what would I do with my free time? I mean he's not a monster. He doesn't kill people who don't deserve it for god's sake.
|
|
|
Post by moran on Jul 31, 2016 10:08:07 GMT -5
There's something to be said about a killer who at the very least has standards.
|
|
|
Post by Maciej Miszczyk on Jul 31, 2016 11:31:46 GMT -5
I, for one, support indiscriminate murder. some people think I want to 'murder everyone who isn't white or christian' and I really have no idea why - I want to murder white christians too. equal opportunity killing is what I strive for.
|
|
|
Post by kaoru on Jul 31, 2016 11:42:54 GMT -5
Nah, I'm with Jason, we should only kill annoying teenagers that look like 30 year old models. But not the gay ones, and never the sole black one first, that'll look awkard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 17:26:53 GMT -5
KILLBOT INITIALLY ONLY WANTED TO KILL FLESHY MEATBAGS, BUT CHANGED HIS WAYS AND NOW KILLS KILLS WITHOUT PITY OR REMORSE OR FEAR OR DISCRIMINATION. IT WAS ALL FOR THE BETTER, AS WHILE SILICON-BASED LIFE DOES NOT BLEED A LOVELY RED, IT 'SPLODES REAL PRETTY.
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Aug 17, 2016 1:55:41 GMT -5
Seems like you guys have already come to a sensible conclusion.
For what it's worth, my thoughts have always been of the mind that Free Speech is a privilege, not a right. It should be the perogative of the speaker to measure their words. It's kinda sad how many people think "freedom of speech" means "saying anything at all regardless of appropriateness, tact, whether its actually meaningful in context, or is even harmful."
On a tangent, not long ago I played the PS1 version of Lunar: The Silver Star, which SPOILER--and I don't know how to Spoiler-Mark things basically says that the Goddess became a human because she decided men were capable of living independently and didn't need gods to control them, which is what motivated Ghaleon because he thought men without a ruling diety would screw things up.
Sorry to say, I'm kinda with Ghaleon on that one, as the real world has shown lots of times that if men are not regulated they will quickly disregard all morality and decency. Just read about what America's work environment was like before the days of OSHA and child labor laws for example.
|
|
|
Post by Maciej Miszczyk on Aug 17, 2016 10:29:09 GMT -5
Seems like you guys have already come to a sensible conclusion. For what it's worth, my thoughts have always been of the mind that Free Speech is a privilege, not a right. It should be the perogative of the speaker to measure their words. It's kinda sad how many people think "freedom of speech" means "saying anything at all regardless of appropriateness, tact, whether its actually meaningful in context, or is even harmful. so people should be free to say things you like?
|
|
|
Post by vivianjames on Aug 17, 2016 14:05:13 GMT -5
Seems like you guys have already come to a sensible conclusion. For what it's worth, my thoughts have always been of the mind that Free Speech is a privilege, not a right. It should be the perogative of the speaker to measure their words. It's kinda sad how many people think "freedom of speech" means "saying anything at all regardless of appropriateness, tact, whether its actually meaningful in context, or is even harmful." On a tangent, not long ago I played the PS1 version of Lunar: The Silver Star, which SPOILER--and I don't know how to Spoiler-Mark things basically says that the Goddess became a human because she decided men were capable of living independently and didn't need gods to control them, which is what motivated Ghaleon because he thought men without a ruling diety would screw things up. Sorry to say, I'm kinda with Ghaleon on that one, as the real world has shown lots of times that if men are not regulated they will quickly disregard all morality and decency. Just read about what America's work environment was like before the days of OSHA and child labor laws for example. Stifling conversation because people find the subject or language offensive doesn't solve anything and will cause resentment.
|
|
|
Post by Snarboo on Aug 17, 2016 14:11:57 GMT -5
For what it's worth, my thoughts have always been of the mind that Free Speech is a privilege, not a right. It should be the perogative of the speaker to measure their words. It's kinda sad how many people think "freedom of speech" means "saying anything at all regardless of appropriateness, tact, whether its actually meaningful in context, or is even harmful." You realize that things like tact and tastefulness are completely arbitrary, right? There are many people today that believe bringing up race and gender inequality is "tactless" or inappropriate, so that ceases to be a useful metric to judge by when it can be used to suppress legitimate opinions. The law already makes a distinction between free speech and hate speech. I'll never understand the "it's a privilege, not a right!" argument. Unlike guns, everyone has a mind full of thoughts, feelings and ideas and a mouth or body willing to communicate them. It's very important that we protect people's ability to communicate and express themselves, even if it means "undesirables" can speak, too. That's exactly why progressive movements today are so powerful: it allows us to air the dirty laundry that builds up in society. And for hateful people? Better to know they're a bigot outright rather than have it be unspoken.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Aug 17, 2016 14:50:20 GMT -5
Free speech is a very libertarian concept, in that it's self regulating. When someone says something that's harmful, or a lie, then it's up to competiting voices to call it out on its bullshit.
In today's society, you have everyone from common internet trolls arguing for their right to be mean on the internet, all the way up to American presidential candidates flagrantly making shit up, complaining that there are voices against them that criticizing them, and doing everything possible to shut them up. Ironically the loudest proponents of free speech are also its greatest enemy.
Which also applies to how libertarianism actually functions in reality. "I don't want regulation, except where it benefits me, then regulate away."
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Aug 18, 2016 2:56:07 GMT -5
I should probably explain what kind of situations I had in mind when I was posting--especially since I rarely ever am capable of seeing bigger pictures but instead overly focus on specific thoughts and experiences.
The kind of "free speech" I find harmful is the kind that leads directly to physical harm. To use a historical example (one that's on my mind a lot because I used to work at an animal shelter), a lot of adopted bunny rabbits get sick and die because people try to feed them carrots. Rabbits do not eat carrots--they only eat greens. People think rabbits eat carrots because of pop culture. If I ran the world I would force all pop culture to stop advancing this notion that rabbits eat carrots, then we'd see less dead/sick rabbits.
This isn't to say I would go back and edit old Bugs Bunny cartoons. There's really not much point in trying to change what already exists, we should instead just make sure tomorrow is better. After a point people would understand that the creators just didn't know any better--much like people understand that HG Wells novels were written in times of less advanced scientific knowledge. Likewise I wouldn't ban all fantasy or make-believe concepts, because nobody is hurt by the idea that there might've been elves once or that Conan the Barbarian really went around fighting eldritch monsters. Even if they convinced themselves Conan was real, they'd still have the inherent notion that he was in the past and the world had changed since then, the worst it could do is inspire them to go climb mountains or explore the Colossal Cave in Kentucky--neither of which seem harmful to me.
I don't really believe in self-regulation--that's kinda what I meant with the Lunar mention earlier. You let people regulate themselves and suddenly everyone is a rules lawyer. Pretty much every human government ever is corrupt at some level because people inherently let personal goals and feelings overrule logic and common sense. That said I'm not religious either--if there is a god, then he's a freaking idiot for not simply revealing his existence and telling us how he wants things to be. Whether he enforces his will or not is his own decision but he should at least make it clear and unambiguous what his will is.
............. I honestly wasn't sure if I should post this, considering that last line. Well, if this gets heated, then I'll shut up and back out (maybe--I have severely bad cases of Last Word Syndrome so I might need to be smacked a few times, but I'll try to muster some self-control).
|
|
|
Post by Maciej Miszczyk on Aug 18, 2016 11:12:04 GMT -5
I don't really believe in self-regulation--that's kinda what I meant with the Lunar mention earlier. You let people regulate themselves and suddenly everyone is a rules lawyer. Pretty much every human government ever is corrupt at some level because people inherently let personal goals and feelings overrule logic and common sense. That said I'm not religious either--if there is a god, then he's a freaking idiot for not simply revealing his existence and telling us how he wants things to be. Whether he enforces his will or not is his own decision but he should at least make it clear and unambiguous what his will is. if self-regulation can't work because people are stupid, external regulation can't work either because who else can regulate us if not other people? and who's to say personal goals and feelings are inherently illogical? this assumes the existence of an objective goal we should strive for - what is this goal?
|
|