PorkChopExpress86

But what about the fandoms? I've been to alot of anime cons and if there's one thing anime nerds like to do, it's talk anime. That doesn't seem to be happening on here. The Harry Potter section seems to get a fair ammount of traffic, but its still nothing in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy this subsection but why, on a site dedicated to various fandoms/writing itself, does the number of posts in this thread exceed the number of posts in categories that are set up to cater to the purpose of the site by large margins?

So greenwizard states in the forum that he wants to end the fighting. I'm fine with that, but then he PMs me with this: I still can't figure out what big words you think I’m using against you, once again these are just normal words to me. I'm not going to talk down to you, if I did, THAT would be calling you stupid but since you’re pressing the issue, uneducated and stupid are not the same thing. You, however, are both. Are you happy now? I'm making a direct assessment of your intelligence level, or lack thereof. That’s what you wanted to see me do so badly didn't you? I do post a lot and speak about things as expertly as I possibly can. If you've perused my posts you'll also note that I include a lot of references to support my claims. I've spent six years in school with the expectation that I do just that, so forgive me if it spills over into other areas. I don't think I'm an expert in everything but it certainly helps when you present your arguments in such a way as to appear to be an authority. It lends credulity to your position. I’m not apologizing for that nor will I apologize for my supposed arrogance. If you feel intimidated by me, that’s your issue, you are the only one who has taken offense to it. I do enjoy being disagreed with; it creates a better conversation as far as I’m concerned. Dialectic reasoning is just that, you offer a proposition, someone offers a counter-proposition, you offer your own rebuttal and they do the same. The ultimate goal is to get closer to the truth you both sought to understand. If you just want people to agree with you, that’s fine, but I don’t. That fosters groupthink, but more importantly, I find it to be very boring. I can argue passionately but still not let it affect my view of the person I’m arguing with, but you are dead set on making this a personal issue between me and you. Correct, I do not know you, but I have drawn many inferences about you from the way you act in these forums and based on that I can make statements about you. It’s possible that these are not reflective of your character, but the only way for me to know for sure is to get to know you on a personal level. Based on the way you conduct yourself here, I have no desire to do that. I also have no interest in your advice, save it for someone who would. I’m posting this here in the forum because I have no wish to carry on a private conversation with you. Feel free to respond, or don’t. I’m more then happy to let this end here and now.

The article talks about meat that is grown without creating a living animal. They are just cloning the muscle tissue. If the can do that it would probably be alot cheaper then raising animals when you consider the cost of land, feed, water, operating a slaughter house, etc. Yeah scientists are expensive and you have to run the lab, but if you just get a bunch of muscle stem cells, code them into chicken, beef, or pork and then let them grow, it could probably become a fast and easy process. Yeah, I can do math without a calculator. I like the thought of nano-tech because it would utterly eliminate the need for hospitals if its perfected. Robots taking over the world is a popular theme in science fiction because it represents a chilling fear, being dominated by a foreign "race" and being hoist by our own petard. But it seems pretty far fetched to me. How would they stay powered? If a terminator like situation broke out, we'd cut the power. I'm sure they'd run on batteries, but it wouldnt' last forever. Now if we ever develop cold fusion... that might be a problem.

Why did I continue this? Because you escalated it by directly attacking me. You did indeed try to incite the whole board against me, Don't try to play the victim here. I included your other posts because they show a broader pattern and I commented on that. It's an open forum, I'm allowed to bring in other topics. And no, I don't have any connection to that person you had another fight with. But if you're done, I'm done.

I think nano-technology should be the ultimate goal for medical technology. If that can be perfected, what better way to stay healthy then to have micro-computer systems constantly monitoring your body, making adjustments and fixing problems before they can get out of control? Cancer usually doesn't get noticed until its gotten to the point where it causes observable symptoms and by then it may be too late, but if the nanomachines are able to see the cancer cells forming immediately and eliminate them, i'm all for it. There are problems with it. What if your nano-machines got a computer virus? Somehow you'd have to get those fixed and THEN fix whatever damage they might have caused to your body. The only way to that point is by research tho. Have you ever seen Serial Experiments Lain? They have a "drug" called accella which is simply a pill sized computer that manipulates your bodily functions into giving you a "natural" high. That was my first exposure to this whole concept and i was fascinated by it. Seems a lot safer then taking synthetic drugs. You would be able to fine tune your experience and not run the risk of ODing. You might give yourself cardiac arrest if you got too out of control with it, but people will find a way to abuse anything. As for that cloned meat, again if it could be perfected then I'm all for it. Genetic manipulation has to be very controlled because of the possible side effects that can occur. Remember the GM wheat several years ago that a bunch of people had allergic reactions to? Clinical tests have to be very large because even if you experience a 1% incidence of negative reaction to the cloned meat that still amounts to 3 million Americans. It would be interesting to see how that meat tasted, but if it was safe, palatable, and economic world hunger would be over.

Indeed, Mad Science is the only science worth discussing. What would you like to know?

Well there has been quite a lot said in the time I’ve been at work, but first I’m going to address greenwizard directly. Like Agaib, I had no clue what your level of academic achievement was. The statement I made was a broad observation of the deep seated anti-intellectualism I have come across in my life. I find this to be sad because the educated people of the world spend quite a lot of time, money, and effort getting to where we are, and to have our informed statements and labored efforts utterly dismissed, if not outright attacked, by people who have no more then a knee-jerk reaction based on ill-informed opinions is insulting and aggravating. I'm not quite sure which big words you are referring to, this is how I speak to my friends in normal conversation when we are having a debate. I'm glad you understood them however, I would certainly hate to have to talk down to someone who proclaims themselves to be so incredibly smart. However, since that seems to be a point of contention for you, let's address it. You've identified words that I feel are rather mundane as being an example of me holding my education over you. Further, you feel threatened by my oblique statements suggesting that you are stupid and uneducated and have responded with vociferous personal attacks aimed directly at me. This tells me you have been called stupid by numerous people throughout your life and are very insecure about it, else you wouldn't have responded that way. Don't take your personal lack of achievement out on me. You have problems that prevent you from going to school? Suck it up or read a book and educate yourself. Technology has been developed by the scientists you so despise that would allow you to work from home and earn the degrees you seem to so desperately wish you had. As Raphaella mentioned, I’m not going to discount you simply because you don’t have a formal education, but if you’re going to make ludicrous statements I’m going to respond. In the future I suggest you back up the things you say with evidence and links supporting your views. You say intelligence is defined as the ABILITY to learn. I have used that ability, I suggest you do the same. A cursory glance at other posts you have made shows me that you are so very keen on having your ego stroked by the people on this board. You made some statements on the religious thread, but when someone disagreed with you, you threw a hissy fit and even started a new thread calling even more attention to it. You constantly reassure yourself that you were being the "bigger man" by walking away from it, but I still question why you even bother coming to a place like this when all you seem to want is people to agree with you. Agaib was pretty clear on this point, your initial question was biased. And then to come here and be so very insistent that you are my equal despite your lack of an education simply belies the insecurity that seems to permeate your life. I'm not your therapist, I'm not here to hold your hand and tell you it's going to be alright. Can science be poorly applied? Absolutely. Eugenics has already been discussed and the experiments of the Nazis, Imperial Japan's Unit 731, The Tuskegee Experiments and others things like that are deplorable. But that is hardly reflective of mainstream science where the pursuit of knowledge and the desire to help people is a strong motivation. Of course it is easy to say that a bunch of people you don't know are expendable but it’s not easy to say the same of your friends. Did anyone argue that it wasn't? However, those choices are made every day. Without human experimentation, how would scientists know what effects any given drug/procedure/etc. would be? People are held accountable for their actions, more so now then ever before. With information so easy to access and global watch groups, its more difficult now for people to engage in unethical research. And the weather machine was your example, I just ran with it. What exactly is your problem with "designer babies"? If parents choose traits for their children that they feel will give them advantages in life, what's the problem? I haven’t looked into the issue, but if it's safe and effective, why not? Who wants to be prone to disease, obesity, physical unattractiveness, or anything else that might be selected against? The only down side I can see would be if it became a universal practice. If everyone was selecting homogenous genes then the variation that naturally occurs would be diminished making the race less adaptive and resilient.

My how quickly we degenerate to insults. You show yourself to have very poor debate skills and come off as patently uneducated when you jump to that, it seems to be pretty common with you. Someone disagrees with you and you cry your poor little eyes out about it. I must question why you get on an internet forum where you know people are going to disagree with you when you have such tender sensibilities. If your god has such a brilliant master plan for everything, then why introduce problems that man would be unable to overcome without the aid of science? Why make him capable of reasoned thought to begin with? And relying on an intelligence quotient to make yourself feel better, are you serious? The value of the IQ test has been pretty much cast aside by... oh right, people with degrees, so you wouldn't care. Stop crying about how the world doesn't understand you and go to school. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." --Galileo Galilei

Yes, science needs to take risks to make breakthroughs. People die when science goes awry but how many are saved when it discovers something great? Would I sacrifice a village to save a nation? Yep. A simple cost benefit analysis says science should proceed in its endeavor to create a weather machine. What might a success there do to reverse the desertification of Northern Africa? Mother Nature has tried to destroy us for several hundred thousand years and now that we have her on the run, we're supposed to give up? Hell no. Make that bitch work for us. And why is it uneducated people are always so quick to say that people who spent most of a decade in school and years in the field are stupid? How many degrees do you have hanging in your office?

So were scientists not meant to map the human genome and offer the possibility of curing heretofore incurable genetic diseases? or how about when they discovered penicillin and stopped "god" from killing hundreds of thousands of people every year? Back in the day when someone died of disease it was believed that god was punishing them so curing them medicinally was pretty much playing god in their eyes. Science should go as far as possible, if it listened to this conservative paranoia we'd still be living in thatched roof huts fearful of the sound of thunder thinking it was god getting angry. And as to the existence of science isolating a gay gene it’s extremely unlikely. If indeed people are born gay (which I do believe is the case) then their sexuality is undoubtedly coded for on multiple genes. Homosexuality is a genetic dead end because they, by nature, don't reproduce thus any inherited trait that made them gay in the first place would not be passed on to a future generation. Further, the studies that have been done on the subject suggest that the children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay then anyone else. So if homosexuality is inborn then it would have to come from a combination of factors that both parents contribute to which would make it very difficult for scientists to “stop.”

pedophelic writing is really the only thing that should be banned. In most cases the argument that reading is not the same as doing is valid, but clinical evidence shows that there is no cure for pedophiles and they experience some of the highest repeat offenders of all sex crimes. "Studies that have tracked sex offenders over longer follow-up periods have found that pedophiles who molest boys, and rapists of adult women, were the types of offenders most likely to recidivate at rates of 52% and 39% respectively." http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html Pedophelia has been classified as a mental disorder (http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355) as well as a felony and as such should not be reinforced with pornographic fanfiction.

as i understand it fanfiction.net used to allow adult fics but then suddenly they deleted all the M stories without warning and offered no explanation, so AFF was formed. Not sure on the details tho, wasn't doing fanfics back then.

auderotic gratification?

That isn't true, it was made up by the industry. Can you imagine a highly traditional, conservative, collectivistic society actualy dragging a girl into the town square and bukkakeing her?

i dont even think this guy is old enough to be here... on average each character spends 2 hours in a single sexual position, the dialogue is pretty contrived (causing Sailor Venus to cry out, in pure pleasure, “AH, YES . . . KAMI . . . YOU HIT THE SWEET SPOT . . . I CAN’T . . . TAKE IT ANYMORE . . . I’M COMING . . .!!!”) and he makes constant reference to the senshi's "private area"s.

The real translation is "thou shalt not murder." the KJV is pretty flawed, being a translation of a translation of a translation. Also, check the post above it, i added a few quotes from the bible you might find interesting.

I would disagree with that because monotheistic religions incite violence and hatred with direct calls to forcibly convert the heathens or put them to the sword. And Jesus spake saying: Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And Allah doth reveal: 5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom. 4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, 8:50 If thou couldst see how the angels receive those who disbelieve, smiting faces and their backs and (saying): Taste the punishment of burning! thanks to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

It is good when people form their own opinions. The problem is the vast majority of the faithful do not, and when faced with evidence to the contrary, strap bombs to their chest and blow up a mall full of people or spout nonsensical "proofs" for their ancient text like ID, liberation theology or snake handling. Karl Marx was a fucking idiot except in his assertion that religion was the opiate of the masses. It allows weak minded and slow witted people to unburden their brains and let someone else figure out life's mysteries for them. Most christians have never read the bible and most muslims are only able to recite surrahs that the local moronic immam spouts out about zionist conspiracies and western moral corruption. Religion is fine if you've actualy looked into it and you don't let it consume you to the point that everything that is contrary is evil, but most do exactly that.

she is a miss brazil. but if you don't tow her line of crap, you aren't allowed to talk. here's a question from her final exam: Q2. Feminism today, with all it痴 local variation, is best understood to be a global phenomenon. Substantiate this statement drawing from research by Erturk, Swider, Bagic, Pietila (Part II) Not "do you support or disagree with this assertion" or "draw on the research and form an opinion", no "substantiate the statement i spoon fed you." that's not even acceptable in an undergraduate class, to say nothing of a masters level.

I'm finishing up a masters degree and currently taking a class on feminism. The professor is immensly qualified and holds numerous PhDs and Masters degrees but she is one of the most close minded people I have ever come across! She explicitly told the class that we are not qualified to critique the arguments of the authors we are reading because we aren't experts on the subject. She says that our opinions are not necessary because all she wants is to know that we understood the article. If i was able to read the article and form a supported rebuttal, then I understood it. All she's interested in is pure indoctrination. Anyway, the whole point of a liberal arts degree is to be exposed to new view points (that includes the professor) and to learn critical thinking skills, which are best developed through debate. She wont tolerate it in her class. The minute someone says anything contrary to her position, she shuts them down. So yes, you probably will have to put up with some pretty ridiculous stuff in college, but it isn't all bad. Just learn to articulate your point of view and ground it with supporting arguments. I'm a libertarian so i'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I could never take the "liberal" party's position becuase they always have alot of problems with things, but never any realistic solutions or allow for debate.

same here, i can't stand dub names. If that's all you're familiar with, then fine. But don't include galaxia, because that arc was never dubbed. heh, that is kinda funny. I'm not saying he's a plaigerist or that i lay all claim to the storyline of jaedite returning from his eternal sleep, but considering the numerous similarities it did make me wonder.

Irreducable Complexity is an incorrect assertion. No matter how you slice it, intelligent design is lazy science. "Oh, we can't figure it out!! It's too hard!! God must have done it! http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html "The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life." The article is pretty exhaustive so i'm not going to reprint it here. The argument that god is the first cause of the universe because the universe is incredibly complex and must have a creator is classicaly articulated in the Divine Watchmaker anaology. "William Paley argued that God's existence could be inferred from the designs seen in biology. He said that if one were walking and came upon a watch, one would not assume that it was the product of nature. It must have been designed by an intelligent being. Likewise, Paley said that the designs seen in biology must be the result of an intelligent Designer" http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld018.html The problem with this is that Cicero was the first advocate of this argument, meant to prove polytheism. A watch is constructed in many parts by many people, so must be the universe. This argument is easily refuted because it grounds itself in the premise of orders of complexity. Watch is the lowest order of complexity, obviously created by man, the next greater order of complexity. Logically, if watch is created by man, a higher order item, then man must himself have a creator, termed god. The obvious leap is then, if watch was created by man and man by god, god requires a creator. Richard Dawkins refutes the whole premise of this argument in his book The Blind Watchmaker. "Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." Here is another argument that contradicts the watchmaker analogy: "The watchmaker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common. A watch is complex A watch has a watchmaker The universe is also complex Therefore the universe has a watchmaker The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. It is best clearified by another example: Leaves are complex cellulose structures Leaves grow on trees Money bills are also complex cellulose structures Therefore money grow on trees (wich, according to the idiom, they don't)" http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

I understand, and i'm not trying to sue this guy or anything. But fanfiction is simply pursuing an original idea with established characters. The stories are original, even if the characters are not. If you are using an existing story line and existing characters, you can't claim your story is original. That would be like me using sailor moon characters and trying to retell a cannon story arc point by point and then saying i came up with it.