Geneaux486

I think it was her husband that actually created the Powerpuff Girls.

I don't change my name to "The Slenderman" because I have a face and don't wear a suit that often, even though I stand a lot and am kinda tall.

I don't think anyone really thinks there's something wrong with people who like a show, it's more the massive amounts of pics in threads where it's off topic.

Well that's why it can't be done. And really, I don't see the point of being able to have foes if you can't even have cool battles with them or something.

Yeah, it wouldn't be smart to add a moderator to that list.

What affect does adding someone as a foe have? You just don't see their posts or something?

True enough. In any case, good luck to you.

Was under the impression that they couldn't do restrictions after attempting to. I voted "indifferent" in the poll. Also, there's no democracy on a forum. It isn't us members that have to make all the decisions, deal with the issues, enforce all the rules, get the complaints, etc.

Wasn't it a large majority that was sending him complaints about image sizes in the first place? Seems like restoring them with no restrictions would just start the whole problem over again.

Lack of signatures doesn't bother me any, but I guess some people put more thought and work into theirs than others. Understandable, but at the end of the day only one person here actually owns this forum.

...Is your avatar Rainbow Dash blowing up Megaton?

Found this to be kinda badass. And this gave me brain problems.

Hope it's okay that I'm bumping this, Lonesome Road came out and I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else here has played it.

I'm a dude, not sure how much of a "gentleman" I am though. I mean I won't smoke cigars in your house or car or pets' faces or whatever, if that counts for anything.

Good to see you, ThatSmartGuy, how've you been? Damn but there have been a lot of name changes O_O I'll probably get myself caught up on it sometime soon, will post in it if I feel like there's something new I can add to the discussion. Very cool. EDIT: Also, near as I can remember, I did not see ponies outside of Michael Archer's avatar several months back. They're kind of everywhere now

I'm back.

Found this, very clever. What now, haters!?

Well first everyone went crazy, and then they made /co/ for the really crazy people to congregate and one thing led to the other and now we have cartoon ponies It's like Hollywood Undead. I'm not a teenage girl so I don't get what is going on. Read the knowyourmeme entry then, it explains it pretty clearly. All you really need to understand it is the ability to link cause with effect.

You really can't not respect the staff that created a show that gathered such a massive fanbase so far away from the target audience. Seems to me that a large part of its success can be attributed to honest-to-gosh effort. I'll catch glimpses of what my young relatives watch these days, and a lot of it seems phoned in. Granted, the shows we watched as kids, specifically in my case the late 80's to mid 90's, weren't always the most educational (though a lot of them were), but they were a hell of a lot more fun to watch. As you said, ABG, this show recaptures that feeling rather well. That aside, based on Lauren Faust's reputation and history, it aint' surprising that more of her work is so well-recieved.

No. However, I do think it is acceptable for a government to open up their own facilities that provide free healthcare to those that need it, run by people who choose to work there of their own free will. The government provides us with a multitude of services, including a postal system, law enforcement and protection, and education. I don’t have a moral right to do anything to you in retaliation, nor should the government have the legal right to take your invention from you. A corporation, however, is not a single person. The people who saw to such a restrictive patent are likely not the ones who put in the time to create the invention. Agreed. It’s an unfortunate part of life and history. And as far as inorganic property goes, we probably agree. Beyond that, a man has the right to the fruits and vegetables he grows as well. The animals he raises, however, I do not think he has the moral right to slaughter inhumanely when. I know you didn’t specify farmer, but that’s just the direction I wound up going in. Fetus ain’t gonna maul its host. That aside, babies consume a lot to, time and energy. I do not see this as less of an attack than the resources it unwittingly has to consume in the previous stage of its life. Guess that comes down to a difference in belief of what the ideal government should do. I think the ideal government should not just secure freedoms, but work towards the betterment of all who fund it. Some private charities do have a history of misusing donation money, which goes back to what I said earlier about the ideal government’s objective not being money. If rights are about what’s required to sustain life, than naturally that would extend to the fetal stage as well, seeing as how we all must go through that stage, and surviving it is necessary to the continuation of our lives. I do not think it is possible to live on this Earth in a society where nobody has to give anything up ever. It’s exploitation to provide them with less than the bare minimum in terms of working environment simply because they have nowhere else to go. I’ve said this several times already. To protect individuals from being taken advantage of by companies who are providing them with next to nothing because they know they can get away with it. Any business is going to strive to produce valuable goods and services while minimizing cost. However, ethical guidelines exist there. And not everyone will. Many do though. I’m sure there were slaves that didn’t think their situation was exploitation, or morally wrong, but it still was all the same. It is not what not killing the developing human life is. I see that not as being forced to renounce one’s own well being for others because the process of pregnancy is an unavoidable stage in the continuity of the human race. It isn’t so black and white as “it’s a parasite, it’s okay to terminate it”. All human life has a basic value in common, at all stages. It’s not a simple matter, nor is there a simple solution, but I do not believe abortion is the right solution. To put it another way, most people require genuine human connection to be happy. Sacrifice is a part of that, genuinely caring for others. Obviously that won’t be true for everyone, but it is true for many. Depends on its capacity. Can it feel pain? If so, then we have no right to torture it. If not, then we can’t very well inflict real pain on it. But these parasitic actions lead to a fully functional human being with its own potential to contribute. Parasites do not do this. It’s a chance at life that I do not believe we have the right to deprive, nor do I believe we can condemn the fetal stage, as it is, like I said before, a necessary aspect of the continuity of our race. And yet someone is going to be forced to take care of the baby. Regardless of whether or not they want it, those who adopt the child won’t really have the choice to not take care of the baby. Infant human beings are not capable of taking care of themselves, they need to be protected from themselves and others, and they need to be nourished. We all needed that in the early stages of our lives, and as a species we always will. Maybe I misunderstood the backstory, I thought the buffaloes had a more legitimate claim to the land that predated that of the settlers- *smacks self* ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

That avatar of yours sometimes makes me imagine Rainbow Dash saying what you’re saying, which is kinda awesome. Because it’s limiting the distribution of beneficial and in many cases life-saving innovations. Withholding that is morally wrong. It’s not a death sentence because no one is going to die. If you want to draw that conclusion, that’s your decision, but no, I was implying no such thing, nor does my viewpoint that everyone deserves healthcare follow a logical straight line to advocating slavery. Furthermore, when I say everyone deserves healthcare, I mean in situations where the government would fund it when the people in question would otherwise die without it. I do not equate this with slavery at any stage. On the moral side: By what right (again, morally, not legally) can you withhold life saving innovations from other people solely for profit? It’s wrong no matter how many times you reword it. Furthermore, again, my viewpoint does not imply what you say it does. If the innovation, say, medicine, can be made from ingredients that can be relatively easy to attain (at least for others who work in the field), there’s no justification for legally forbidding others from making it. I think we’re in agreement as far as the legality of the system goes. I am fine with setting it aside if you are. Your comparison makes sense now, and while I do agree that a fetus is different from a baby and therefore should be treated differently, I do not agree that the difference extends to whether or not we have a moral right to kill it. Rights are social, ethical, legal, and moral. A person stranded on a desert island has no one around who would acknowledge his basic rights, but he still has them. As for the fetus, the nutrients are provided via a natural and unavoidable function of the woman’s body. You’ve done a fair amount of both. They take resources and give nothing back. By your definition of rights, babies do not have them. This is what I argue against. Agreed, but we also have to respect the rights of those fellow men who are not self-sufficient but are alive nonetheless. On the small scale, you. Yes they do. We survive by force as well, as a species, we always have. That’s why wars are fought, lands that already have people living on them are claimed for other countries and colonized, it’s the reason why those of us in America are here to begin with. All living things have rights, they just extend in different capacities to what that living thing is capable of perceiving, doing, and being. Because human beings are part of the world, and dependent on countless other living organisms for survival, and have the potential to destroy them and by extension ourselves if they are mistreated. Because they’re living things, because they can feel it, and because it is unnecessary. You said yourself that torturing an animal was disgusting and perverse, so really, you should have no trouble seeing why I believe they have moral rights. The need to initiate force is irrelevant in terms of rights in general. If a hyena attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself by taking it out. That’s as far as the need to initiate force effects their rights. It does not mean a dog has no rights in a situation where it’s done nothing wrong but someone abuses it anyway. Not by your definition of “harm” you didn’t. We can’t create oil or fossil fuels. And when we produce we have to be careful that we are not negatively impacting the environment from which we get our raw materials, otherwise that environment will stop yielding them. An ideal government is made for the people, by the people, and therefore funded by the people, with the specific goal of protecting those who run and fund it with no goal of profit in mind. A corporation having any say in that would completely defeat the purpose. It’s adding in a middle man who’s interests conflict with what the government is ideally supposed to do. The government doesn’t so much have the right to tax us as it does an obligation, and we have an obligation to pay those taxes (as long as they’re reasonable and not misused). It’s our system, we run it, we fund it. Again, ideally, though this rarely works out so well in real life. So you do agree that rights differ depending on the stage of life we are in. If that’s the case I don’t understand why you have such a hard time seeing why I think other living things have rights in a similar fashion, limited to their capacity, but there nonetheless. I don’t expect you to agree, of course, but so far every time you’ve tried to paraphrase my views you’ve gotten it wrong. Except that they are making things that are being sold at high prices, and this system of justice you’re convinced works is still allowing them to suffer. One, they’re children, two, again, you’re talking about an ideal situation, which is not what’s happening in the real world. In the real world, these people are exploited, but have no other businesses in that area competing for their employment. There are many reasons why this could be. And again, your definition of the word is insufficient. Your definition allows for the justification of taking advantage of people by way of exploitation, coercion, really just straight up manipulation. This is never morally acceptable. If it’s here, I’ll respond to it until a mod tells me not to. I will probably venture into your Cvs.S thread when I find some time to get caught up on it, not just gonna jump in without reading the whole thing. One involves taking something you’re not entitled to, the other involves giving something of yourself, a personal choice. There’s literally no double standard therein. Yes, it needs to be the individual’s decision. We do not have the right to force others to renounce their own well-being for others. In the sense of the straight-up philosophical view that one completely denounces themselves and instead focuses on everyone else, I suppose not. However, just as there are varying degrees of selfishness, there are varying degrees of altruism. But he happened to be right about a lot. In this case, applying his “mean” idea to helping others while holding onto our individuality is accurate. We can’t lose ourselves, and we can’t ignore others. To be happy, truly happy, we need people around us we genuinely care about, and who genuinely care about us. We can’t look out for our own self-interests exclusively if we want to be happy. The fact that it is living means it will have rights on some level, the fact that it is a developing human being means it has the basic right to survive. Which would only be relevant if the fetus made a conscious decision to live there, which it didn’t. It’s an unavoidable and natural part of life. It means the government makes it illegal for a doctor to kill it. But that’s not what it means. It means that we acknowledge that there are two lives involved, and act accordingly. This existence, this dependence on another for survival does not go away at birth. In fact, it increases, because now the nutrition the baby requires is not transferred to it naturally, more effort must be taken to provide for it. You cannot just abandon your baby. That is a right that, by your definition of the word, infringes on another right. And that’s normal, we cannot all get every single thing we want in life. We have to share. As a species, it’s not optional. You can say the fetus has the right to grow and develop the same way the rest of us did without saying the woman’s body isn’t hers, without implying it. Nobody says you have to help other people or sacrifice yourself, but on an individual scale it is a genuinely good thing to do. On a grander scale, it’s a necessity for the survival of our species. Yeah. and we may just have to agree to disagree on that once and for all. It’s not who’s desire it is that makes an action selfish, it’s what the desire is for. There are selfish desires, and there are desires that are utterly selfless. Wouldn’t be much of a debate otherwise.

I've heard that to, and really, that's basically like saying that any sequel that isn't a radical departure from the formula of the first game is an upgrade of its predecessor. It uses the same formula, so there are obviously going to be similarities to Fallout 3, but with some noticeable improvements. The storyline is new, and very well told, and the locales are very different from what you'd find in the Capital Wasteland. I like it better than F3 myself, and I loved F3.

Asahina, who is Gordon's former Girlfriend, Saw Gordon with his brother John, eating space brownies with headcrab zombie icing, and she was pissed at God for not making her beautiful enough for him, instead he chose Jessica, who was John Freeman's wife! John Freeman fucked Gordon up because he didn't have the money to get a crowbar, instead buying teletubbies which caused Gordon to jump on top of lung and use wepon against zombie ghosts! Then Captain Tightpants, surprisingly pantless today, had an epiphany "Kaylee was right next to bees that were angry and shooting lazoooors!" Captain Tightpants said "UGH BOOGA BIM" and Gordon Freeman replied "Ma lazoooor!" and everything exploded, headcrab zombie Icing and cake was seriously friggin' everywhere. Gordon felt guilty and John started crying a pond. Just then an antelope crashed through to the surface from the land called "Under the Surface". All of a sudden there was a huge rift and Asahina disappeared. Someone said something about the Combine attacking John Freeman by kidnapping Asahina, John Freeman frowned and said, "Avast!" He then got his grappling hook stuck in an asshole of a vortigant who said "Why, thanks, John!". The Vortigant started hovering over a giant headcrab that looked suspiciously like Wallace Breen. Earlier, Breen had been

Asahina, who is Gordon's former Girlfriend, Saw Gordon with his brother John, eating space brownies with headcrab zombie icing, and she was pissed at God for not making her beautiful enough for him, instead he chose Jessica, who was John Freeman's wife! John Freeman fucked Gordon up because he didn't have the money to get a crowbar, instead buying teletubbies which caused Gordon to jump on top of lung and use wepon against zombie ghosts! Then Captain Tightpants, surprisingly pantless today, had an epiphany "Kaylee was right next to bees that were angry and shooting lazoooors!" Captain Tightpants said "UGH BOOGA BIM" and Gordon Freeman replied "Ma lazoooor!" and everything exploded, headcrab zombie Icing and cake was seriously friggin' everywhere. Gordon felt guilty and John started crying a pond. Just then an antelope crashed through to the surface from the land called "Under the Surface". All of a sudden there was a huge rift and Asahina disappeared. Someone said something about the Combine attacking John Freeman by kidnapping Asahina, John Freeman frowned and said, "Avast!" He then got his grappling hook stuck in an asshole of a vortigant who said "Why, thanks, John!". The Vortigant started hovering over a giant headcrab that looked suspiciously like

Asahina, who is Gordon's former Girlfriend, Saw Gordon with his brother John, eating space brownies with headcrab zombie icing, and she was pissed at God for not making her beautiful enough for him, instead he chose Jessica, who was John Freeman's wife! John Freeman fucked Gordon up because he didn't have the money to get a crowbar, instead buying teletubbies which caused Gordon to jump on top of lung and use wepon against zombie ghosts! Then Captain Tightpants, surprisingly pantless today, had an epiphany "Kaylee was right next to bees that were angry and shooting lazoooors!" Captain Tightpants said "UGH BOOGA BIM" and Gordon Freeman replied "Ma lazoooor!" and everything exploded, headcrab zombie Icing and cake was seriously friggin' everywhere. Gordon felt guilty and John started crying a pond. Just then an antelope crashed through to the surface from the land called "Under the Surface". All of a sudden there was a huge rift and Asahina disappeared. Someone said something about the Combine attacking John Freeman by kidnapping Asahina, John Freeman frowned and said, "Avast!" He then got his grappling hook stuck in an asshole of a vortigant who said "Why, thanks, John!". The Vortigant started hovering over a