New
Oct 11, 2008 7:22 AM
#201
Sugoi-otaku said: Baman said: There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt. And even if there were, Innocentia nihil probat. is that the same way theres no such thing as darkness? No such thing as darkness only absence of light? Please elaborate. I got the quote off from the fanatical imperialistic universe of WH40K, but I do agree with it to some extent. |
Oct 11, 2008 7:32 AM
#202
ukonkivi said: And he subconsciously liked to fuck his mother.lol, Freud was a pedophile. |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 9:15 AM
#203
Can't believe i'm posting in this thread, but whatever. Take note that if you read this, i have not read all 11 pages of this shit, but a few posts every now and then, mainly from the first couple of pages or so. Spoiler for giganticness Children do know what sex is- however, they also don't. Of course, this all depends on the child, but in today's society it affects the majority (I'm talking specifically about a western society btw, I cannot add outside of there for I'm not sure how kids act outside of it). Now what do I mean? Kids know what sex is, how to do it, and what comes from it. But how do they learn such things? Through other kids or people in general, just as they know curse words. Or in a lot of cases today, the internet. For example: I have a family friend, currently 8 years old, grade 4 or so. She knew about sex even earlier than I did (5 years old). She learnt it from my cousins. And in-fact, she was the one who introduced my brother (aged 15) to 2-girls-1-cup. In my opinion, kid's below puberty simply only fascinate over the subject of sex because it is forbidden to them, they aren't actually sexually aroused, but are mere curious. They're parents forbid them to say swear words, prevent them from learning "naughty stuff", and if the kid somehow discovers "naughty stuff" the parents dismiss it as something else, or something bad. But this is the general Adult's ignorance. Just because they are a kid, doesn't mean you should treat them as a 'kid'. The average adult has forgotten how they were as a kid, and treats children as ‘innocent’, fragile things. The average kid is not innocent or fragile. They will be looking for whatever it is you don’t want them to. Normal children will always be curious about these taboo subjects the adults don't let them see. Of course, one kid will learn it from somewhere, then that kid will teach it to another, and so on. It cannot be stopped. If somehow the child manages to not encounter any of the above, they will learn about sex (or "naughty stuff") themselves, simply by the curiosity of the opposite genders pee pee. note* Kid's do not call genitals pee pee, but the usual vulgar words, their actual names, or those 'things', etc... Despite knowing all of this, there is no sexual drive in kids until they hit puberty. Anything a kid does before puberty, is simply curiosity, or because it's what everybody else is doing. Take someone I know for example. He first watched a porn video when he was 6, when my 7 year old cousin told him to watch it with him. He got the video from my uncle's room, whom had a TON of porn videos. As he watched the video, he had no reaction. He did not know what to think, but there was a guy shoving his pee pee up a girls pee pee. Then he notice my cousin is freaking jacking off, aka 'masturbating', although at the time he thought he was just 'playing' with his penis, and that was it- after all he had ‘played’ with his when he was around 4, when he first noticed he had something different to a girl. His first porn video experience lasted 5 minutes or so. At other times, my cousin would ask him whether he 'masturbated', he always said no. Which was true, he never actually even 'officially' figured out what masturbating was till he was at least 11, and had not done such a thing all that time, but that's not what i'm on about right now. He found that about a week after the first video, he asked my cousin if they could watch it again. Eventually, he ended up just grabbing videos and watching them himself, all because my cousin showed him a video and kept on talking about the stuff. He didn't actually get any 'real' reaction out of the video, but was just watching it because it was something different, and it was the 'forbidden' thing adults didn't want us to know. I honestly believe that if cartoons and kid shows were the ‘forbidden’ things, and kids around the world grew up watching porn videos on t.v, kids wouldn’t be much different. The most they'd do is play 'pretend sex' or actually have sex (although still playing), just like one could play pretend pokemon or something today. Then when no adults are around, they would go search up Tellitubies, or whatever has caught their attention. Today, he can’t believe he watched all that shit and even more when he was so young, and If he could go back in time he would change that... But he knows why he did watch the stuff at the time. He knew the stuff out of curiosity, and nothing else. He wasn’t mature enough to actually know what it was, even though he knew what it was. There was no sexual drive. Any kid before puberty will automatically deny they know such stuff to a parent or other such figure, in order to avoid trouble, and If somebody sexually harassed them, it would be because they were a kid. They let it happen because they didn't know better, because they didn't want to get into trouble. Going back to my 8 year old family friend... She told my brother to watch 2-girls-1-cup over MSN, because it was ‘DISGUSTING!’ According to her, her mother showed it to her (clearly not a ‘average’ parent). I must also take a note about scientific facts. Science is a theory. Something always has the chance that it could be proven wrong one day. Besides, these are kids were talking about. They will lie. They will always lie, to avoid getting in trouble by grownups, or simply because they don't know better, hence any general facts from them are pretty much useless. /end discussion of the pre-pubescent and sex _________________ Fuck talking about entering puberty and adolescence, its taking me long enough to write the above, which is near 1000 words, and it’s past 3 am now. I want my sleep. |
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Oct 11, 2008 9:19 AM
#204
Zetsubou1117 said: Raz, I never said you had to be an English guru or master debater, or whatever it was you called it. I'm 16 and plan to become a doctor, diagnostician to be exact, which I'm sure you'll agree has nothing to do with knowing proper grammar. I just feel that it's sad that people haven't even come close to mastering their own original language, but still feel they should be taken seriously in arguements. =/ Oh snappety snap. |
Oct 11, 2008 9:30 AM
#205
1,070,000 hits on Google is hardly a spelling fallacy, that's just a new spelling evolving, the same gave rise to things like awful, formally aweful, which is now redlined on my spell-checker. |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 9:42 AM
#206
khorven said: 1,070,000 hits on Google is hardly a spelling fallacy, that's just a new spelling evolving, the same gave rise to things like awful, formally aweful, which is now redlined on my spell-checker. arguement: 2,270,000 hits argument: 136,000,000 hits First hit on arguement brings up http://arguement.net/, a site devoted to the single message that "Arguement is a common misspelling of argument:" So there you see, it's completely inaccurate and I... wait, there's more: Misspellings like mispellings and misspelings, are so benign that usually they serve only as a criticizing point for people who cant argue arguments, but are switching their focus to these 'fundamental' flaws in your character. " SHIT I GOT SERVED. ...damn you, internet. |
Oct 11, 2008 10:07 AM
#207
pulverkaffi said: Yap, and then wait a couple of years, language præscriptivism is stupid and meaning is use. Did the site also give some clear scientific arguments as to why it is a 'misspelling' and not an 'alternative spelling', what the hell is a the difference 'common misspelling' and an 'alternative spelling' any-way? Formalize the fucking difference, they are the same thing, the latter just has more positive connotations. It's 'He is no longer under the living' versus 'He's dead'. language evolves, so does spelling, the people that say 'alot' is wrong but still use things like 'whatever' and 'another' are hypocrite. There is no such thing as 'incorrect spelling' there is merely 'obscure' spelling and some spellings tend to be really obscure. And oh:khorven said: 1,070,000 hits on Google is hardly a spelling fallacy, that's just a new spelling evolving, the same gave rise to things like awful, formally aweful, which is now redlined on my spell-checker. arguement: 2,270,000 hits argument: 136,000,000 hits First hit on arguement brings up http://arguement.net/, a site devoted to the single message that "Arguement is a common misspelling of argument:" So there you see, it's completely inaccurate and I... wait, there's more: Misspellings like mispellings and misspelings, are so benign that usually they serve only as a criticizing point for people who cant argue arguments, but are switching their focus to these 'fundamental' flaws in your character. " SHIT I GOT SERVED. ...damn you, internet. 86,900,000 for connexion 361,000,000 for connection 'Connexion' was the original spelling, 'connection' arose from confusion with 'correction' and 'refraction' et alia. Same for inflexion / inflection (hint: flexible). I take spelling 'correctly' a lot further than you do, I write connexion, inflexion, iland, realize, program, octopodes, aeternal however I also realize that there exists no difference between an alternative spelling, and an incorrect spelling formally, I am not a language præscriptivist |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 10:17 AM
#208
khorven said: octopodes There should be an organization of People Who Say Octopodes. |
Oct 11, 2008 10:25 AM
#209
Oct 11, 2008 10:29 AM
#210
I just can´t get the idea I say who knows, the fact is that a human its a sexual being |
volcano00 personal lolicon goddess¡¡ http://www.sambakza.net/peom/tteotta_eng.htm |
Oct 11, 2008 10:32 AM
#211
Siing said: Can't believe i'm posting in this thread, but whatever. Take note that if you read this, i have not read all 11 pages of this shit, but a few posts every now and then, mainly from the first couple of pages or so. Spoiler for giganticness Children do know what sex is- however, they also don't. Of course, this all depends on the child, but in today's society it affects the majority (I'm talking specifically about a western society btw, I cannot add outside of there for I'm not sure how kids act outside of it). Now what do I mean? Kids know what sex is, how to do it, and what comes from it. But how do they learn such things? Through other kids or people in general, just as they know curse words. Or in a lot of cases today, the internet. For example: I have a family friend, currently 8 years old, grade 4 or so. She knew about sex even earlier than I did (5 years old). She learnt it from my cousins. And in-fact, she was the one who introduced my brother (aged 15) to 2-girls-1-cup. In my opinion, kid's below puberty simply only fascinate over the subject of sex because it is forbidden to them, they aren't actually sexually aroused, but are mere curious. They're parents forbid them to say swear words, prevent them from learning "naughty stuff", and if the kid somehow discovers "naughty stuff" the parents dismiss it as something else, or something bad. But this is the general Adult's ignorance. Just because they are a kid, doesn't mean you should treat them as a 'kid'. The average adult has forgotten how they were as a kid, and treats children as ‘innocent’, fragile things. The average kid is not innocent or fragile. They will be looking for whatever it is you don’t want them to. Normal children will always be curious about these taboo subjects the adults don't let them see. Of course, one kid will learn it from somewhere, then that kid will teach it to another, and so on. It cannot be stopped. If somehow the child manages to not encounter any of the above, they will learn about sex (or "naughty stuff") themselves, simply by the curiosity of the opposite genders pee pee. note* Kid's do not call genitals pee pee, but the usual vulgar words, their actual names, or those 'things', etc... Despite knowing all of this, there is no sexual drive in kids until they hit puberty. Anything a kid does before puberty, is simply curiosity, or because it's what everybody else is doing. Take someone I know for example. He first watched a porn video when he was 6, when my 7 year old cousin told him to watch it with him. He got the video from my uncle's room, whom had a TON of porn videos. As he watched the video, he had no reaction. He did not know what to think, but there was a guy shoving his pee pee up a girls pee pee. Then he notice my cousin is freaking jacking off, aka 'masturbating', although at the time he thought he was just 'playing' with his penis, and that was it- after all he had ‘played’ with his when he was around 4, when he first noticed he had something different to a girl. His first porn video experience lasted 5 minutes or so. At other times, my cousin would ask him whether he 'masturbated', he always said no. Which was true, he never actually even 'officially' figured out what masturbating was till he was at least 11, and had not done such a thing all that time, but that's not what i'm on about right now. He found that about a week after the first video, he asked my cousin if they could watch it again. Eventually, he ended up just grabbing videos and watching them himself, all because my cousin showed him a video and kept on talking about the stuff. He didn't actually get any 'real' reaction out of the video, but was just watching it because it was something different, and it was the 'forbidden' thing adults didn't want us to know. I honestly believe that if cartoons and kid shows were the ‘forbidden’ things, and kids around the world grew up watching porn videos on t.v, kids wouldn’t be much different. The most they'd do is play 'pretend sex' or actually have sex (although still playing), just like one could play pretend pokemon or something today. Then when no adults are around, they would go search up Tellitubies, or whatever has caught their attention. Today, he can’t believe he watched all that shit and even more when he was so young, and If he could go back in time he would change that... But he knows why he did watch the stuff at the time. He knew the stuff out of curiosity, and nothing else. He wasn’t mature enough to actually know what it was, even though he knew what it was. There was no sexual drive. Any kid before puberty will automatically deny they know such stuff to a parent or other such figure, in order to avoid trouble, and If somebody sexually harassed them, it would be because they were a kid. They let it happen because they didn't know better, because they didn't want to get into trouble. Going back to my 8 year old family friend... She told my brother to watch 2-girls-1-cup over MSN, because it was ‘DISGUSTING!’ According to her, her mother showed it to her (clearly not a ‘average’ parent). I must also take a note about scientific facts. Science is a theory. Something always has the chance that it could be proven wrong one day. Besides, these are kids were talking about. They will lie. They will always lie, to avoid getting in trouble by grownups, or simply because they don't know better, hence any general facts from them are pretty much useless. /end discussion of the pre-pubescent and sex _________________ Fuck talking about entering puberty and adolescence, its taking me long enough to write the above, which is near 1000 words, and it’s past 3 am now. I want my sleep. well guess what, me and 99% of the rest of the world believe that they ARE innocent, and last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish. |
Oct 11, 2008 10:40 AM
#212
khorven said: Yap, and then wait a couple of years, language præscriptivism is stupid and meaning is use. Did the site also give some clear scientific arguments as to why it is a 'misspelling' and not an 'alternative spelling', what the hell is a the difference 'common misspelling' and an 'alternative spelling' any-way? Formalize the fucking difference, they are the same thing, the latter just has more positive connotations. It's 'He is no longer under the living' versus 'He's dead'. language evolves, so does spelling, the people that say 'alot' is wrong but still use things like 'whatever' and 'another' are hypocrite. There is no such thing as 'incorrect spelling' there is merely 'obscure' spelling and some spellings tend to be really obscure. And oh: 86,900,000 for connexion 361,000,000 for connection 'Connexion' was the original spelling, 'connection' arose from confusion with 'correction' and 'refraction' et alia. Same for inflexion / inflection (hint: flexible). I take spelling 'correctly' a lot further than you do, I write connexion, inflexion, iland, realize, program, octopodes, aeternal however I also realize that there exists no difference between an alternative spelling, and an incorrect spelling formally, I am not a language præscriptivist Yes yes, we can choose to be all inclusive and not bicker at people who follow their own conviction instead of blindly heeding official authorities, but where's the FUN in that? |
Oct 11, 2008 10:46 AM
#213
Plate said: Naturally, I, of course also pluralize loans from Semitic languages by altering vowels and germinationkhorven said: octopodes There should be an organization of People Who Say Octopodes. pulverkaffi said: Naturally, I, of course also pluralize loans from Semitic languages by altering vowels and germination.I'M PWNED LIKE HAVING BIRD FOR HAIR. |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 10:46 AM
#214
Defiance said: last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish. well then, define innocent for me, and while youre at it, tell me where you got the statistic 99% from. |
Oct 11, 2008 10:48 AM
#215
Defiance said: well guess what, me and 99% of the rest of the world believe that they ARE innocent, and last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish. No, majority doesn't rule. Fact does. Define innocence in this context, prove that it exists, and prove that it matters. You know, proper argumentation. Not value-statements and argumentum ad populum. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Oct 11, 2008 10:50 AM
#216
Kaiserpingvin said: hominí sapientí, argumenta ad populum argumenta ad penulicompensationem sunt.Defiance said: well guess what, me and 99% of the rest of the world believe that they ARE innocent, and last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish. No, majority doesn't rule. Fact does. Define innocence in this context, prove that it exists, and prove that it matters. You know, proper argumentation. Not value-statements and argumentum ad populum. I looooooovvvvveee coining Latin phrases. Edit, by the way 'argumentum ad populum' is singular. |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 10:52 AM
#217
Kaiserpingvin said: Defiance said: well guess what, me and 99% of the rest of the world believe that they ARE innocent, and last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish. No, majority doesn't rule. Fact does. Define innocence in this context, prove that it exists, and prove that it matters. You know, proper argumentation. Not value-statements and argumentum ad populum. For the record, I completely agree with your statement, but for the sake of being an ass; Prove that fact rules, argument properly for the supposed correctness of your statement. |
Oct 11, 2008 10:53 AM
#218
khorven said: penulicompensationem uhhh... |
Oct 11, 2008 10:54 AM
#219
Sohei said: Hell yeah. compensation of a small penis (accusative).khorven said: penulicompensationem uhhh... |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 10:56 AM
#220
Plate said: khorven said: octopodes There should be an organization of People Who Say Octopodes. That's kids' stuff. You haven't arrived until you start using "Platypodes" in public. |
Oct 11, 2008 10:59 AM
#221
pulverkaffi said: Prove that fact rules stay away from philosophy pl0x khorven said: Sohei said: Hell yeah. compensation of a small penis (accusative).khorven said: penulicompensationem uhhh... what a way of putting things.. anyhow, lolicon triumphs again over the nonbelievers. |
Oct 11, 2008 10:59 AM
#222
Iri said: Same rule here.Plate said: khorven said: octopodes There should be an organization of People Who Say Octopodes. That's kids' stuff. You haven't arrived until you start using "Platypodes" in public. Naturally I also treat 'virus' as a mass noun in English, like: 'my computer caught a piece of virus', 'my computer has virus'. |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 11:01 AM
#223
Sohei said: Coining Latin phrases to make appear internet phænomena as sophisticated: win.pulverkaffi said: Prove that fact rules stay away from philosophy pl0x khorven said: Sohei said: Hell yeah. compensation of a small penis (accusative).khorven said: penulicompensationem uhhh... what a way of putting things.. anyhow, lolicon triumphs again over the nonbelievers. An argumentum ad penulicompensationem just means saying 'You're just trying to compensate for the size of your small penis.' |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 11:03 AM
#224
khorven said: Sohei said: Coining Latin phrases to make appear internet phænomena as sophisticated: win.pulverkaffi said: Prove that fact rules stay away from philosophy pl0x khorven said: Sohei said: Hell yeah. compensation of a small penis (accusative).khorven said: penulicompensationem uhhh... what a way of putting things.. anyhow, lolicon triumphs again over the nonbelievers. An argumentum ad penulicompensationem just means saying 'You're just trying to compensate for the size of your small penis.' i figured out the start from my french and limited italian ; ) yes, i think latin's the way to end all arguments, intelligently. yet...I SPOT TEH DOUBLE POST OMFG END OF TEH WORLDZ |
Oct 11, 2008 11:12 AM
#225
khorven said: Coining Latin phrases to make appear internet phænomena as sophisticated: win. Well, props for correct usage of the dativus auctoris; one doesn't normally see that employed properly on anime boards. |
Oct 11, 2008 11:30 AM
#226
Defiance said: well guess what, me and 99% of the rest of the world believe that they ARE innocent, and last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish. 99%? Yeah, you obviously don't go to /B/ |
Oct 11, 2008 11:32 AM
#227
pulverkaffi said: For the record, I completely agree with your statement, but for the sake of being an ass; Prove that fact rules, argument properly for the supposed correctness of your statement. Prepare for massive sophistry and illogical wordplay. We cannot know with certainity, well, anything. We cannot know if there is a fact or not. But we'l assume there is one because a) it seems like it, the world appears coherent (so we assume that if "facts" exists they are in the world we percieve too - mainly because assuming that they don't makes the concept useless) and b) it's useful. If we assumed the contrary it'd be on the basis of strong skepticism and it would be useless; the choices have equal validity but unequal benefit. So we go for the one we percieve as better. So now that we assume there is factuality, or consistence, in the world we percieve. Now, what does this consist of? We need not go further in this case; because now "majority rules" becomes a subdivision of "fact rules", and as such both can be true simultaneously. This is of course not what I meant; fact as a visible phenomena which can be tested and verified is, of course, what I were getting at. The reason I think this is the basis for reality is because it's what everyone can agree on without consulting eachother, without soiling our experiences of the external world with semiotic garbage. Assuming that majority rules would, well, make it possible for us to totally change how the world looks: we could somehow make surte that everyone thought humans were immortal, or whatever. Indeed; there are several insatnces of this being disproven - when new things were discovered. How would observations of quantum fluctuation ever have been possible if majority rules - and they, if I'm to extrapolate from what I know of common scientific knowledge at the time, agreed that we were made out of atoms (and how would the shift to atoms have been possible?). My weltanschuung is made out of game theory. khorven said: An argumentum ad penulicompensationem just means saying 'You're just trying to compensate for the size of your small penis.' TRYING AND FAILING SPECTACULARLY! :D It's so tiny, I should really speak in sanskrit, or maybe in musical notation coded like Elgar would have had it. And yes, populam is singular, after all the populace of earth is a single populace, no? |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Oct 11, 2008 11:33 AM
#228
Iri said: Naturally sir, naturally. As per style I am not sure if I should go for 'homini sapienti' or just 'sapienti' in this context, I think the latter has more of an air of poetique to it.khorven said: Coining Latin phrases to make appear internet phænomena as sophisticated: win. Well, props for correct usage of the dativus auctoris; one doesn't normally see that employed properly on anime boards. It's really just the same as in English really: 'to a wise man, the argument to the people acts like an argument to compensation of a small penis.' I personally am for the controversial opinion that 'to' quite simply makes act like a dative case in English, it gives some interesting ideas such that verbs like 'listen' require the dative case and effectively præpositions take the dative case in motion and the oblique case in static, quite more sensible but the reverse of what's often done. |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 11:35 AM
#229
Kaiserpingvin said: pulverkaffi said: For the record, I completely agree with your statement, but for the sake of being an ass; Prove that fact rules, argument properly for the supposed correctness of your statement. Prepare for massive sophistry and illogical wordplay. We cannot know with certainity, well, anything. We cannot know if there is a fact or not. But we'l assume there is one because a) it seems like it, the world appears coherent (so we assume that if "facts" exists they are in the world we percieve too - mainly because assuming that they don't makes the concept useless) and b) it's useful. If we assumed the contrary it'd be on the basis of strong skepticism and it would be useless; the choices have equal validity but unequal benefit. So we go for the one we percieve as better. So now that we assume there is factuality, or consistence, in the world we percieve. Now, what does this consist of? We need not go further in this case; because now "majority rules" becomes a subdivision of "fact rules", and as such both can be true simultaneously. This is of course not what I meant; fact as a visible phenomena which can be tested and verified is, of course, what I were getting at. The reason I think this is the basis for reality is because it's what everyone can agree on without consulting eachother, without soiling our experiences of the external world with semiotic garbage. Assuming that majority rules would, well, make it possible for us to totally change how the world looks: we could somehow make surte that everyone thought humans were immortal, or whatever. Indeed; there are several insatnces of this being disproven - when new things were discovered. How would observations of quantum fluctuation ever have been possible if majority rules - and they, if I'm to extrapolate from what I know of common scientific knowledge at the time, agreed that we were made out of atoms (and how would the shift to atoms have been possible?). My weltanschuung is made out of game theory. thank you. |
Oct 11, 2008 11:36 AM
#230
Kaiserpingvin said: Studying Sanskrit for me was bested by lack of discipline but dayumn what a classical language it is. All I've done was translate stupid Shakespeare quotes into it. 'Romea, Romea, Kásmin tvam, Romea?' No, I do not read the nágarí script yet even.TRYING AND FAILING SPECTACULARLY! :D It's so tiny, I should really speak in sanskrit, or maybe in musical notation coded like Elgar would have had it. And yes, populam is singular, after all the populace of earth is a single populace, no? I'm talking about 'argumentum'. There is no need to make all other than the head noun plural. |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 11:43 AM
#231
pulverkaffi said: thank you. No worries, it made my penis feel almost a centimetre longer. khorven said: Studying Sanskrit for me was bested by lack of discipline but dayumn what a classical language it is. All I've done was translate stupid Shakespeare quotes into it. 'Romea, Romea, Kásmin tvam, Romea?' No, I do not read the nágarí script yet even. I've learnt a bit of it through plowing through a parallel text Bhagavad-Gita; wouldn't be able to create a sentence for the life of me. khorven said: I'm talking about 'argumentum'. There is no need to make all other than the head noun plural. You're correct, sir. I am still amazed I got top grade in latin. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Oct 11, 2008 11:51 AM
#232
Kaiserpingvin said: All but naturally, the penchant for the misanthropic is mark of the sophisticated, commended you shall be.I've learnt a bit of it through plowing through a parallel text Bhagavad-Gita; wouldn't be able to create a sentence for the life of me. khorven said: I know Latin for shit, never really studied the verbal conjugations, I used to make my reading exams mostly based on theory of mind.You're correct, sir. I am still amazed I got top grade in latin. 'What would a person who has already written this write next?' In French, I couldn't read 90% of the words but I made it with enough theory of mind. |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 11:56 AM
#233
i wonder how many more happy posts are left until this thread is marked as spam. its entertaining nonetheless. |
Oct 11, 2008 11:57 AM
#234
I got a news article but its about "CP" so it would still be off topic and send the topic in a new direction if I post it. Anybody want me to anyway? |
Oct 11, 2008 11:58 AM
#235
Drunk_Samurai said: I got a news article but its about "CP" so it would still be off topic and send the topic in a new direction if I post it. Anybody want me to anyway? damn right. |
Oct 11, 2008 12:12 PM
#236
only real men take risks. i oblige you to post it. |
Oct 11, 2008 12:43 PM
#237
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5995084&page=1 I don't see how I'm at risk. Anyway I think this is just stupid. |
Oct 11, 2008 12:47 PM
#238
It is just stupid. The government is protecting the girl, who willingly took action, from hurting herself by sending her to a detention center? If i was in japan, people would laugh at this. |
Oct 11, 2008 12:50 PM
#240
Sohei said: If i was in japan, people would laugh at this. We'd do that in Norway as well. That would be perfectly legal here. "There's a totally false perception among juveniles that there is no risk to this," Oswalt told ABCNews.com. "That picture, once taken and sent, gives anyone who receives it the ability to do anything with it, forever. If a picture of you found its way onto the Internet, that's going to haunt you, potentially forever." I agree with that quote, but if some girl decides to send the pictures, she's accepting the risk and must accept whatever happens in the future. It's her own body after all, but I guess some people doesn't understand such a concept. Look at all the anti abortion people. |
Oct 11, 2008 12:55 PM
#241
Drunk_Samurai said: Defiance said: well guess what, me and 99% of the rest of the world believe that they ARE innocent, and last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish. 99%? Yeah, you obviously don't go to /B/ Since when does /b/ represent the general population? lol /b/ is populated(primarily) by a bunch of 16-26 year old dudes that sit on the computer all day that scream "moar" Now if you walk out into a populated area, ANYWHERE(besides San Fransisco) and try to make this argument, you'll probably get punched in the face(probably by me), matter of fact, the only reason half the people here even TRY to make the argument is because there are no repercussions for promoting pedophilia under an anonymous name on the internet. Now if you believe it was MORALLY right to do it, you would say it irl, but im pretty sure you don't. You know its morally wrong, but you want to do it anyways and are just trying to find a justifiable meaning to being a sick and twisted individual. So yea, go back to /b/ with the pedophiles and enjoy the exploitation of children and bring me(which there isn't) a justifiable meaning to pedophilia. GOOD DAY SIR |
Oct 11, 2008 12:56 PM
#242
Baman said: Sohei said: If i was in japan, people would laugh at this. We'd do that in Norway as well. That would be perfectly legal here. "There's a totally false perception among juveniles that there is no risk to this," Oswalt told ABCNews.com. "That picture, once taken and sent, gives anyone who receives it the ability to do anything with it, forever. If a picture of you found its way onto the Internet, that's going to haunt you, potentially forever." I agree with that quote, but if some girl decides to send the pictures, she's accepting the risk and must accept whatever happens in the future. It's her own body after all, but I guess some people doesn't understand such a concept. Look at all the anti abortion people. Yeah. I agree. People just try to shove their personal beliefs on others instead of ignoring it if its something they don't like. |
Oct 11, 2008 12:57 PM
#243
Defiance said: Drunk_Samurai said: Defiance said: well guess what, me and 99% of the rest of the world believe that they ARE innocent, and last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish. 99%? Yeah, you obviously don't go to /B/ Since when does /b/ represent the general population? lol /b/ is populated(primarily) by a bunch of 16-26 year old dudes that sit on the computer all day that scream "moar" Now if you walk out into a populated area, ANYWHERE(besides San Fransisco) and try to make this argument, you'll probably get punched in the face(probably by me), matter of fact, the only reason half the people here even TRY to make the argument is because there are no repercussions for promoting pedophilia under an anonymous name on the internet. Now if you believe it was MORALLY right to do it, you would say it irl, but im pretty sure you don't. You know its morally wrong, but you want to do it anyways and are just trying to find a justifiable meaning to being a sick and twisted individual. So yea, go back to /b/ with the pedophiles and enjoy the exploitation of children and bring me(which there isn't) a justifiable meaning to pedophilia. GOOD DAY SIR It was a joke, moron. |
Oct 11, 2008 12:58 PM
#244
Drunk_Samurai said: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5995084&page=1 I don't see how I'm at risk. Anyway I think this is just stupid. I lol'd. Also, LICKING VALLEY. |
Oct 11, 2008 1:01 PM
#245
Drunk_Samurai said: Serious logical fallacy you make, that it was a joke is only believed by the majority, he's the only one that didn't see it after all. His post on the other hand is awesome, the second incompleteness theorem appears nihil nextto.Defiance said: Drunk_Samurai said: Defiance said: well guess what, me and 99% of the rest of the world believe that they ARE innocent, and last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish. 99%? Yeah, you obviously don't go to /B/ Since when does /b/ represent the general population? lol /b/ is populated(primarily) by a bunch of 16-26 year old dudes that sit on the computer all day that scream "moar" Now if you walk out into a populated area, ANYWHERE(besides San Fransisco) and try to make this argument, you'll probably get punched in the face(probably by me), matter of fact, the only reason half the people here even TRY to make the argument is because there are no repercussions for promoting pedophilia under an anonymous name on the internet. Now if you believe it was MORALLY right to do it, you would say it irl, but im pretty sure you don't. You know its morally wrong, but you want to do it anyways and are just trying to find a justifiable meaning to being a sick and twisted individual. So yea, go back to /b/ with the pedophiles and enjoy the exploitation of children and bring me(which there isn't) a justifiable meaning to pedophilia. GOOD DAY SIR It was a joke, moron. |
Perelman, martyr |
Oct 11, 2008 1:05 PM
#246
Defiance said: So yea, go back to /b/ with the pedophiles and enjoy the exploitation of children and bring me(which there isn't) a justifiable meaning to pedophilia. How do you know there isn't a justifiable meaning hmm? I grow weary of people flaunting their moral views as the one and true "RIGHT". |
Oct 11, 2008 1:08 PM
#247
Baman said: Defiance said: So yea, go back to /b/ with the pedophiles and enjoy the exploitation of children and bring me(which there isn't) a justifiable meaning to pedophilia. How do you know there isn't a justifiable meaning hmm? I grow weary of people flaunting their moral views as the one and true "RIGHT". i wonder what you would do if your 8 year old child was molested by some 20 year old dude, i really wonder EDIT: as for khorven, it looks like he is just trying to piss people off, its kind of like how an atheist will act like they're satanic just to piss Christians off |
Oct 11, 2008 1:09 PM
#248
Defiance said: Baman said: Defiance said: So yea, go back to /b/ with the pedophiles and enjoy the exploitation of children and bring me(which there isn't) a justifiable meaning to pedophilia. How do you know there isn't a justifiable meaning hmm? I grow weary of people flaunting their moral views as the one and true "RIGHT". i wonder what you would do if your 8 year old child was molested by some 20 year old dude, i really wonder Molestation =/= consensual relations I'd be pissed off if my friend was raped, but not if she had sex. |
Oct 11, 2008 1:13 PM
#249
Plate said: Defiance said: Baman said: Defiance said: So yea, go back to /b/ with the pedophiles and enjoy the exploitation of children and bring me(which there isn't) a justifiable meaning to pedophilia. How do you know there isn't a justifiable meaning hmm? I grow weary of people flaunting their moral views as the one and true "RIGHT". i wonder what you would do if your 8 year old child was molested by some 20 year old dude, i really wonder Molestation =/= consensual relations I'd be pissed off if my 8 year old child was raped, but not if she had sex. fixed* please dont bring me out of context |
Oct 11, 2008 1:15 PM
#250
Defiance said: Circular reasoning as if I ever saw one.Plate said: Defiance said: Baman said: Defiance said: So yea, go back to /b/ with the pedophiles and enjoy the exploitation of children and bring me(which there isn't) a justifiable meaning to pedophilia. How do you know there isn't a justifiable meaning hmm? I grow weary of people flaunting their moral views as the one and true "RIGHT". i wonder what you would do if your 8 year old child was molested by some 20 year old dude, i really wonder Molestation =/= consensual relations I'd be pissed off if my 8 year old child was raped, but not if she had sex. fixed* please dont bring me out of context And about the top per cent of intelligence agrees with me in this topic, so I don't really want to piss people of, I do want to piss you of because you're stupid. |
Perelman, martyr |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |