"second I never even said that. So strawman bro."
"The ideas of sentience, consent, and love will likely degenerate there too."
Get fucked.

"I am not a bigot"
Said literally every bigot ever.

"but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope."
You have successfully demonstrated AGAIN that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Saying our idea or perception of consent might change over time =/= Saying consent will just stop existing for no reason

So yeah, wonderful strawman dude.

>Said literally every bigot ever

Yeah ooooook. Despite my literal lack of prejudice toward any particular group, I guess I'm a bigot and I just didn't know it. Geez doctor I really wish I knew earlier, I was completely clueless!

I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about, maybe you don't understand it, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Now do you actually have anything to add or refute? Or is your entire comment just going to be "Get a load of this guy."?

That's literally all I need to do at this point.
You've made it painfully obvious to anyone who were to read this.

More like it's part of a slope.

Yes I did compare homosexuality to incest. They are both a sexual issue, and are more similar than you think. They were or still are illegal to some extent, society has strong taboos against them, the taboos against them both are completely irrational, and it's a taste that's only going to be understood by people that belong to that category. Quite similar actually.

This is why I replaced the word "incest" with "homosexuality" in your comment. To put it better into context how ignorant you're being.

For one, you finding incest gross, is completely subjective and irrelevant. Just like how someone finding homosexuality gross would also be subjective and irrelevant. No one is asking you to take part in incest, just like how nobody is asking anyone to take part in homosexuality. But why does just because you find it gross, it should be banned?

>homosexuality isn't that big of a deal

I agree. And I also think that incest isn't that big of a deal

>and you think you can put incest at the same level?

Yes I can, why can't I? They're quite similar. Read my first paragraph on a few examples on how.

Go watch the good dinosaur, I went into the theater with zero expectations and it blew me away everything about it is good

I'm pretty sure it's because in movie society everyone has a job and a family and they can't have those things if they're shit-faced at 8:00 am while their kids get ready to go to school.

You're not supposed to do either during the day, you know.

I can come down from being high in the middle of the day and be fine, but if I sober up when I'm still awake I feel like shit and can't function well.

Weed and alcohol are different. Being drunk in the morning and passing out waking up at night isn't great. Plus most people work during the day. Weed is different because you inject it, whoever told you that you smoke weed is retarded. If you truly want the best high, you inject it between your toes. Also when your high on weed you have control over motor functions.

Ummm? Are we talking about the same drug here?

I'll always enjoy that video, even tho that dude is a complete queer.

According to Wookiepedia, anything outside of the movies, is considered Legends content, or the Expanded Universe as it's usually called. This seems to include the games and the Clone Wars.

Also on Wookiepedia, there is an editor's note "which I first saw on articles of Clone Wars episodes" stating that the article in question is no longer canon and must be deleted by an editor (which I hope to God nobody actually does, they'd be erasing so much information).

I managed, in the end. Roll gods have played with me.

Whew boy, that was a shit ton of misinterpretation.

When did I say gay marriage makes the concept of consent not exist? For one that's irrelevant, and second I never even said that. So strawman bro.

Now for your first misinterpretation, I don't use the word "degeneracy" in this context as meaning good or bad. I mean the word quite literally, like as in "to degenerate". As in morals that we have held close of the sexual nature as a culture, are now on the decline. This is by definition "degeneracy", and that's necessarily a bad thing depending on what it is. So apologies that you took that out of context.

And don't tell me I've "played my hand" as a "conservative fear-monger". I've already said it once, I'm not a "fear monger", I just point out obvious logic which apparently people are in "fear" of according to you. I am not a bigot, I don't even know where you got that from, I don't hate anyone for their skin color, gender, or sexuality. Well maybe not this sexuality anyway. I'm not terribly fond of zoophiles. For some reason you have perceived by observations of the obvious to be some kind of propaganda, can't imagine why.

Now for your second misinterpretation. Your vendetta against the slippery slope, has clouded your perception of the examples I listed. The slippery slope (like the word degeneracy earlier) is not an exclusively good or bad thing, as I thought would have been made clear by my examples. No I am not a racist, I am happy that Blacks are our equals now, but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope. No I am not a sexist, I am happy that women are also our equals now, but that process was also a perfect example of slippery slope. So not "oh no" or "gasp".

I do not entirely blame you for the first misinterpretation, but I blame you a little bit on the second. I hope by clearing up these misunderstandings my points are now abundantly clear to you.

"second I never even said that. So strawman bro."
"The ideas of sentience, consent, and love will likely degenerate there too."
Get fucked.

"I am not a bigot"
Said literally every bigot ever.

"but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope."
You have successfully demonstrated AGAIN that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Saying our idea or perception of consent might change over time =/= Saying consent will just stop existing for no reason

So yeah, wonderful strawman dude.

>Said literally every bigot ever

Yeah ooooook. Despite my literal lack of prejudice toward any particular group, I guess I'm a bigot and I just didn't know it. Geez doctor I really wish I knew earlier, I was completely clueless!

I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about, maybe you don't understand it, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Now do you actually have anything to add or refute? Or is your entire comment just going to be "Get a load of this guy."?

That's literally all I need to do at this point.
You've made it painfully obvious to anyone who were to read this.

More like it's part of a slope.

Whew boy, that was a shit ton of misinterpretation.

When did I say gay marriage makes the concept of consent not exist? For one that's irrelevant, and second I never even said that. So strawman bro.

Now for your first misinterpretation, I don't use the word "degeneracy" in this context as meaning good or bad. I mean the word quite literally, like as in "to degenerate". As in morals that we have held close of the sexual nature as a culture, are now on the decline. This is by definition "degeneracy", and that's necessarily a bad thing depending on what it is. So apologies that you took that out of context.

And don't tell me I've "played my hand" as a "conservative fear-monger". I've already said it once, I'm not a "fear monger", I just point out obvious logic which apparently people are in "fear" of according to you. I am not a bigot, I don't even know where you got that from, I don't hate anyone for their skin color, gender, or sexuality. Well maybe not this sexuality anyway. I'm not terribly fond of zoophiles. For some reason you have perceived by observations of the obvious to be some kind of propaganda, can't imagine why.

Now for your second misinterpretation. Your vendetta against the slippery slope, has clouded your perception of the examples I listed. The slippery slope (like the word degeneracy earlier) is not an exclusively good or bad thing, as I thought would have been made clear by my examples. No I am not a racist, I am happy that Blacks are our equals now, but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope. No I am not a sexist, I am happy that women are also our equals now, but that process was also a perfect example of slippery slope. So not "oh no" or "gasp".

I do not entirely blame you for the first misinterpretation, but I blame you a little bit on the second. I hope by clearing up these misunderstandings my points are now abundantly clear to you.

"second I never even said that. So strawman bro."
"The ideas of sentience, consent, and love will likely degenerate there too."
Get fucked.

"I am not a bigot"
Said literally every bigot ever.

"but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope."
You have successfully demonstrated AGAIN that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Saying our idea or perception of consent might change over time =/= Saying consent will just stop existing for no reason

So yeah, wonderful strawman dude.

>Said literally every bigot ever

Yeah ooooook. Despite my literal lack of prejudice toward any particular group, I guess I'm a bigot and I just didn't know it. Geez doctor I really wish I knew earlier, I was completely clueless!

I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about, maybe you don't understand it, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Now do you actually have anything to add or refute? Or is your entire comment just going to be "Get a load of this guy."?

That's literally all I need to do at this point.
You've made it painfully obvious to anyone who were to read this.

More like it's part of a slope.

Think of the word "badass" for a moment, what does that mean exactly? And when someone is a "badass" why do we like that so much?

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=badass

Some of the definitions here can paint a clearer picture on what a badass is exactly. Read the first 5 or so.

Anyway, the Tao of Badass, is a guide, a tutorial, a bit of a code, on how to be a badass. For clarification, I think it's actually the website, or "school of thought" if you will that's called "The Tao of Badass". I believe the actual main book is called something along the lines of "How To Be A Badass With Women".

Basically women love badasses, and us as men base a lot of our life on our success with women. So what this book does it teach you how to be "badass with women" by teaching you specifically on how to be a badass. But what it teaches you doesn't just apply to women, a lot of what it teaches you, affects components of your whole life, especially your social life.

The book delves a lot into psychology, behavior, and life style. I truly believe it is a must read for all men, especially the beta types. Whenever I see a guy who just seems weak, unsuccessful, crappy with women or whatever, I always think "He should read The Tao of Badass.

I highly suggest you look into it some, because there is a lot more than just the book. If you want, I can link a torrent.

thepiratebay.se/torrent/8730550/The_Tao_of_Badass_-_Become_A_Badass_with_Women___4_Bonus_Books_p

Might need to pirate it again myself, I've seem to have lost the bonus books on my computer.

BTW bonus books, but they're more like extra chapters. "DLC" if you will, but some of them include essential information.

Nah, I think those came with the original package that you would purchase anyway. Joshua Pellicer is the fucking man, and that's quite literal.

Whew boy, that was a shit ton of misinterpretation.

When did I say gay marriage makes the concept of consent not exist? For one that's irrelevant, and second I never even said that. So strawman bro.

Now for your first misinterpretation, I don't use the word "degeneracy" in this context as meaning good or bad. I mean the word quite literally, like as in "to degenerate". As in morals that we have held close of the sexual nature as a culture, are now on the decline. This is by definition "degeneracy", and that's necessarily a bad thing depending on what it is. So apologies that you took that out of context.

And don't tell me I've "played my hand" as a "conservative fear-monger". I've already said it once, I'm not a "fear monger", I just point out obvious logic which apparently people are in "fear" of according to you. I am not a bigot, I don't even know where you got that from, I don't hate anyone for their skin color, gender, or sexuality. Well maybe not this sexuality anyway. I'm not terribly fond of zoophiles. For some reason you have perceived by observations of the obvious to be some kind of propaganda, can't imagine why.

Now for your second misinterpretation. Your vendetta against the slippery slope, has clouded your perception of the examples I listed. The slippery slope (like the word degeneracy earlier) is not an exclusively good or bad thing, as I thought would have been made clear by my examples. No I am not a racist, I am happy that Blacks are our equals now, but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope. No I am not a sexist, I am happy that women are also our equals now, but that process was also a perfect example of slippery slope. So not "oh no" or "gasp".

I do not entirely blame you for the first misinterpretation, but I blame you a little bit on the second. I hope by clearing up these misunderstandings my points are now abundantly clear to you.

"second I never even said that. So strawman bro."
"The ideas of sentience, consent, and love will likely degenerate there too."
Get fucked.

"I am not a bigot"
Said literally every bigot ever.

"but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope."
You have successfully demonstrated AGAIN that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Saying our idea or perception of consent might change over time =/= Saying consent will just stop existing for no reason

So yeah, wonderful strawman dude.

>Said literally every bigot ever

Yeah ooooook. Despite my literal lack of prejudice toward any particular group, I guess I'm a bigot and I just didn't know it. Geez doctor I really wish I knew earlier, I was completely clueless!

I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about, maybe you don't understand it, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Now do you actually have anything to add or refute? Or is your entire comment just going to be "Get a load of this guy."?

That's literally all I need to do at this point.
You've made it painfully obvious to anyone who were to read this.

More like it's part of a slope.

And I just replied to myself, I am a genius.

>>#122

Abortion is it's own debate. I was referring to the fact that once you find out you can't kil a 1-year old because of his origin. Plus, abortion is a decision that comes from its progenitors, not the state telling you to abort, so no point comparing those.

"If that was how we made laws, we would hardly be allowed to do anything because Z will happen because A happened" What you are using here is plain demagogy, that's like using the counter-argument that you need to be born in order to commit crimes, so stopping births stops crimes.

When A is borderline bannable, and B which is the only possible following event to A, then A is banned. It's not fallacious logic, its fucking logic. Why do you think selling drugs is a crime, when the crime should be taking them? Why do you think having guns is banned in most countries, when the crime should be killing people?

This IS in fact how we make laws, it's just your skewed view of this matter that makes you desire otherwise (as is human nature when we are taken away something we enjoy/want).

You'd be losing your choice in the matter because incestuous procreation would be illegal, and criminal punishment is defined as losing rights, usually being choice. If you were going to break the law by having an incestuous baby, you're not going to have the upper hand against the law as far as choice goes.

How is A borderline bannable? Do you really mean to say it's just a societal taboo? Because that's all it is. And no B is not the only possible thing following A. For some reason you are convinced there has never been a relationship in this world that has not ended with a child being created. I had a girlfriend when I was a 16, I remember very clearly how I never created a baby with her. The same can be said for millions of other couples. Also millions of marriages never conceive children. This is all evidence, that no "B is not the only possible following event to A" Not to mention that when incestuous procreation would be illegal, that would heavily discourage B from ever happening anyway.

I swear when arguing with people that have the same viewpoint you do, condoms, abortion, contraceptives, and the concept of "not wanting kids" just stop existing.

Now selling drugs is guaranteed that the sole purpose is for someone to take them. People don't sell or buy drugs just to have them sit on the shelf, it's a substance they intend to use. In this case, A is a means to get to B. That doesn't apply to this argument, because A in itself is what these people would want. To be married to their incest based partner. There aren't people that want incest legalized so they can create children that way, they want incest legalized so they can legally marry their partners period. I'm not going to deny there would be couples that would want such, but since B would be illegal, that is the compromise for legalizing this. And gun control, like you said, is it's own debate. It's a little too complicated to be used as a comparison in this regard.

A should be illegal when it's purpose is to cause B. But that doesn't fucking apply here. Because it's not the purpose of a marriage to create children, it's the purpose of a marriage to married to your spouse, procreation is something else entirely. Essentially A should be legal, because A doesn't always cause B, especially if B was illegal on it's own. And if you think A will always cause B, you're wrong.

Also I'll just assume, that you didn't have a counterpoint for most of my first paragraph on my previous comment?

Oh... I don't know I gotta rewatch it.

Yeah he obviously prefers the blaster, and only uses the saber out of desperation, or against another saber. He actually prefers his strengths quite a bit.

really now that I'm thinking about it, why didn't Finn pick up one of the blasters of a fallen stormtrooper

He did.

Oh... I don't know I gotta rewatch it.

Yeah he obviously prefers the blaster, and only uses the saber out of desperation, or against another saber. He actually prefers his strengths quite a bit.

true, tbh it would make more sense if Finn was better than Rey with the light saber because he was the best in his class in hand to hand combat (such as the stun baton) +he had more practice with it even if it is just a few hours or so... Rey literally just picked up l it up when she fought kylo

That might work in unarmed combat, which would require for both parties to be disarmed. Or Fin should have had that spinny thing that one Stormtrooper had, which would have made more sense, but that still wouldn't have translated to a lightsaber very well.

really now that I'm thinking about it, why didn't Finn pick up one of the blasters of a fallen stormtrooper

He did.

Oh... I don't know I gotta rewatch it.

Yeah he obviously prefers the blaster, and only uses the saber out of desperation, or against another saber. He actually prefers his strengths quite a bit.