Jump to content

Nox

Yolk
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Nox

  1. He's a performer, I'll count that as trolling.
  2. Basic rules: Post an out-of-context quote from someplace on the internet . The next poster must guess if the quote was genuine, or an attempt at trolling. Don't say anything about a quote's origins until another poster reads/watches/whatever-s and makes a guess. Due to the nature of these things, there may not be a correct guess. Try to keep things short, if you can. Example: To begin, lets turn on the oven: "It matters because jews are pushing a malevolent and harmful agenda. Judaism is actually a Satanic religion. The Messiah said that the jewish Pharisees were "children of hell" (Matthew 23:15), "of their father the devil" (John 8:44), and a "synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9). Judaism is not the Old Testament. It is an occult/Satanic religion that follows the Babylonian Talmud and Kaballah. The jews are soldiers for Satan, and are leading the Satanic "New World Order" agenda. And look at the fruits of jewish power and influence. For instance, the jews 100% run Hollywood and the porn industry. They use these things to push their anti-Christ, Satanic agenda."
  3. I'm glad to see the recent topics feed is back.

  4. One can't judge Jan Terri on a 0-10 scale. It just doesn't do her justice.
  5. @bryanna won't look at me anymore
  6. Ideally, I'd rather pedophiles be fucking child-shaped dolls than actual children. It's hard to make any opinion here without any objective data. My knee-jerk reaction is to say no to (most) things being outright banned. I see little good taking away one of a pedophile's few sexual outlets, especially if they keep a pedophile from preying on real kids. I'm of the opinion that so long as people (including kids age < 18) aren't being harmed, they can have that outlet. This relies on an assumption that pedophiles aren't necessarily predators and that sexual outlets stave off predatory behavior. That being said, I don't want pedophilia normalized as a fetish. I don't know how I would feel about these products becoming popular; without data, it's harder to speculate. What if these child-sized dolls caught on because they were more affordable? I doubt that would happen if they looked like kids, but what if they dolls were made so that they could look like children (picture something like an adult build-a-bear workshop)? That seems more realistic, given the internet, but does that layer of nuance change anything? I find it hard to draw a moral line here, but there could be something I'm overlooking. If one wanted a sex doll and a company sold high quality dolls of varying prices and sizes, it could be that the smaller ones are less expensive because they use less materials. Should they be banned on the sole principal that they look like children, or that they're sex toys and look like children? What if the product was child-sized but the customer had to make them look like children? Would you want their fucked up sexual needs to stop you from being able to buy a blank toy? And if not, why is it wrong for the company to bridge that gap for their customer? All of those questions could be invalidated by the right data, so I'm up in the air as it stands now. The only thing that I can be certain about is that these dolls (or their sexual parts) will be restricted to adults due to their nature. I feel that is the most fair regulation you can put on the products since it already limits access to children and makes it illegal for them to be exposed to it. Anymore regulation could easily become a bureaucratic nightmare and another taxpayer burden.
  7. Does that count as enlightenment?
  8. > situation NK acts like this every year. I doubt much of anything is going to happen other than a dick measuring contest.
  9. 6/10. Not bad music, just not my style.
  10. 1/10, don't much care for anything to do with British monarchs. Been that way for the past few centuries. I can agree with the tradition bit, but purpose is hard to justify. Religion is an evolving part of culture, meaning that traditions can change. I dislike ideological stagnation and traditions are rife with them and some people use tradition as an excuse to avoid change. Like I said, I don't really care what the monarch wants to do and I need more context to form a better opinion. _____________ I'm gonna exaggerate my views with this one: A generic libertarian perspective, in the scope of US politics, is morally wrong. @Seeker and I talked about differences between libertarian policy in Sweden Vs. US. From what I remember, Sweden has universal basic income but no minimum wage laws. This is antithetical to some US libertarians, who believe any form of taxation is theft. Some would consider zero-minimum-wage laws and no taxation to be beneficial; I see that as a form of libertarian extremism and try to avoid those talks. To elaborate: most US libertarians are anti-regulation anti-tax and pro free market. At their worst, they advocate total-market rule and advocate the destruction of our rights. In this case, I argue that libertarians advocate destroying our rights through the free market. In the US, to work a job is to sign away your rights for money. Your freedom of speech is taken away along with your freedom of self-expression. Libertarians will make the argument that at-will employment offsets this, but the argument seems hypocritical. Our 4th amendment rights are broken daily as companies dig deeper into our lives. A libertarian argues that a government doesn't give you choice. It forces itself upon you and is always looking to take away your rights and money. That sounds exactly like what the market does too. Businesses need these sorts of restrictions; that I can agree with. What I don't agree with is how the libertarian viewpoint ignores this and the effects big business has on our rights. There are many big-business lobbies that are working hard to limit our rights, and its their money that's allowing them to do it. In the end, it does come down to the politician's actions yet many libertarians will ignore the market's role. This is where I take issue. Now, I believe that capitalism is the best system we have for individual growth, but it isn't perfect by itself. It's unwise to think a free market has all of the solutions or that a free market implies a free people.
  11. Is RR for cultists now?

  12. I'm not in your drama list. Are you some gay hating faggot?
  13. spooky scary
  14. That's gay.
  15. Domestic terrorism implies that a citizen of the victimized country did it. 9/11 was not domestic terrorism. Cristopher Dorner was a domestic terrorist.
  16. Hey, I got here first.
  17. I'm feeling a little pretentious today, as per usual, and I want to discuss how y'all write characters. I don't necessarily mean for books either, I just want a discussion about how people make "people". I have a history of making people up. Dungeons and Dragons and other table top games frequently challenge me to create people. In my journey I've learned a few things about how to make a person. Everybody wants. If your character doesn't want something, chances are people won't be very interested in them. Want creates conflict and plots all on its own. If I make a person, I need to make them want something. Characters lie, both to themselves and to others. Narrators lie too. A character can be as moral as an angel, but they lie all the time, just in different ways. Strange may be one of the best labels you can put on a character. If something is strange, then it isn't normal. If your character is strange, chances are they're interesting too. A flawed character is a better character. The greek gods wouldn't have such interesting stories if they were without flaws. Zeus banged everything, Hera was an utter bitch, Athena was incredibly jealous e.t.c. Despite being god's, a definition of perfect, they have flaws which make them interesting and also tend to make them WANT. The best time to get to know a character is when they are alone. Characters are best expressed through action, not description. Dialogue may be the best way for a character to express themselves. Those are some things I think about when I write people. What are some of your guys' favorite characters? How do you write people, if at all?
  18. Eh, I don't really see how those points conflict with five or six. Physical description is inherent to a character's being; You'll be given it when they're alone (unless written otherwise). Being alone is a direct interaction with the world. Tom Hanks was alone on an island in Cast Away, so he tried to get help (interaction while the character is alone). I simply like it when a character is alone because you get to see more unique examples of a character's behavior. You act differently when you're alone than you do when with friends, right? What interesting stories could you tell from a time when you were alone? Certainly they'd be unique examples of how you behave. I mean, fuck, Spongebob demonstrates it well: It was a simple way to tell us something about Squidward and (incidentally) develop him. Change the setting a bit (to say, an island perhaps) and you've got plenty of great ways to make a character better. Description has its perks too, but actions explain so much more about a character. Imagine a man with a bloody stump for an arm. With that thought alone, all he'll be is a man with a bloody stump for an arm. Now, imagine this man in two different scenes: one where he falls to the ground and cries about his missing limb, and one where he sticks a plunger to his stump and jokingly hits you with it. With an action, this man becomes two different people. It all depends on context which one is more important, though. When I read, I tend to find character description is pretty minimal aside from important details. The reader tends to fill in a lot of blanks if you give them just enough to work with. The bulk of the character development is then carried out by how they act. Certainly they rely on each other, I just see action as having more sway. "The best way" is a little subjective in this case, sure (I also just realized the contradiction in six). Context is everything, and there is no wrong way to creatively write if you handle the language well.
  19. Yeah, totally. I was once told that fiction is designed to explore ideas. If you aren't exploring, it ain't fiction. Characters are like ships in this regard, helping you sail into the unknown... I've been told that writing from personal experience is a good thing too. It was Picasso who said, "Good artists copy, great artists steal," and this is true for writing too. Steal your own experiences and your writing will be better.
  20. Yeah, it just looked like you missed what I said.
  21. How does being alone stop a character from "showing"? Isn't a serial killer's actions in their lair pretty telling about the character? How they keep their tools if at all, how they plot their next target, e.t.c. I agree with "showing" more than telling. I mentioned this in 6, though.
  22. Eh, it helps with nationalism a bit. If people respect the days, it can bring a society closer together. I can make an argument for why women's day should exists w/o a men's day, but you've probably heard it 100 times over.
  23. And I'm sure just what they'd want us to do is "calm our tits". "What did people expect?" Our rights to no be violated. Certainly, we should expect otherwise, but to just roll over when they do? We do that enough already and I'm getting pretty fuckin' tired of it. Also, you sound a bit like a gov't apologist. What exactly is wrong with people getting mad over their rights being violated? Sure it happens, but we certainly don't have to like it.
×