Retribution

[size=1]White's a pretty cool cat. I see him as close to a brother as a Canadian online friend can be. We stopped chatting for a while, but recently we've been getting back into the habit of making fun of each other and I must say it's good times. Did I mention the fact that he's the Event Master? Yeah, that gets him cool points, even though he'll never be as cool as Shy. But we love you still. ;D[/size]

[size=1][b]1: What changes (if any) do you think the forum structure needs?[/b] None come to mind. But the idea of the Underground becoming a sub-forum of the Square popped into my head, and I have yet to really think about the merits and drawbacks of the idea. And whatever happened to The Nexus? I have no grasp on the logistics of it all, but would it be possible to have Otakupedia more like Wikipedia? Like login, editing pages, and having in-text links to other pages? Would it be possible to just use [url=http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki][b]MediaWiki[/b][/url] and be done with it? Come to think of it, modifying the Jukebox [again, I know] might be a good idea too. Does anyone really use it in its current form? [b]2: What new sites would you add to the OB Network?[/b] I'm not really sure, to be honest. Perhaps a link back to theOtaku, or are we speaking of another network entirely? [b]3: Should OB Network provide a hosting service to members for their own personal sites? If you have your own personal site, would you consider having it hosted by OtakuBoards?[/b] I'm going to say no on both counts. I could see having an OB hosting service becoming rather cumbersome, and I kind of feel like myO is there for a reason, granted you are forced to conform to a certain format on there. And as a matter of preference I wouldn't want to be hosted by an anime site, since my website is leaning towards professional. Then again, monthly fees would be a great way to get some cash. [b]4: Comments/Suggestions[/b] You're a cool guy and I like how you're consulting the community on possibilities for OB's future. Oh, and could we please change the banner for the Liquid scheme? I liked what we had before.[/size]

[size=1]Most fashion in my area faces a race rift. Black guys usually wear jerseys, hand-designed shirts with cartoon characters painted on (there's a general shift away from these two), or a design-conscious graphic t-shirt. Jeans are usually faded and baggy with shoes matching shirt colors. But there is also a movement towards H&M/Gap/Old Navy stuff, like grey short-sleeve sweaters with a black long sleeve shirt underneath, which I find cool. White guys tend towards tighter shirts and jeans here, and there is a general disregard for shoes matching shirts. At my school, it's mostly Hollister/American Eagle/Abercrombie clothes. Not too many people are hopping on the emo bandwagon, and seem to be loving the prepwear. I tend to like graphic t-shirts and a jacket or hoodie to go over it (unzipped, of course). I don't really like super-tight jeans, but I'm move towards slimmer ones. And I also have a thing for scarves these days.[/size]

[size=1]Well, initially I thought it too strict. But I know when you go to private school, you have to sign this contract that basically surrenders all rights you have to the school. So if "no tattoos whatsoever" was in the rules, then the guy has to accept the consequences. But if that's not the case and there's only a rule on visible tattoos, then the school is being a bit dogmatic. If you can't see it, how does it hurt you?[/size]

[size=1]Actual payment is totally unnecessary, as I think affirmative action (whether you like it or not) is currently serving that purpose, and was founded for that exact same reason. And I'm not really sure it's fair to say the government is being the "bigger man" by apologizing. I think it is indeed a goodwill gesture, but isn't it a bit patronizing to consider those minorities wronged in the past by the government complainers (not word I was looking for)? I never understood the "There are more pressing matters" argument, either. It really isn't an involving process to issue a formal apology, and unless everyone's minds are solely focused on getting an apology, I hardly see the problem with wanting one.[/size]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']You see this is what I don?t understand, why do they owe it to them as you speak when you?ve admitted that the current administration had nothing to do with what happened.[/quote] [size=1]They speak for the government as an entity, as I said. They apologize that these atrocities were perpetrated in the past by the entity they now represent. Here's an example: A company's administrators decide to put out a defective product for personal gain. They profit immensely, but later the public finds out the product is defective and it's harming people. The CEO and offending administration resign, and new leadership takes their place. The new CEO [i]should apologize to its costumers for the damage caused[/i]. That specific CEO is not responsible, but he represents the company as a whole. Not apologizing makes the company look bad for not admitting it was wrong. [QUOTE]But on the same line of reasoning, the government as an entity is responsible for abolishing slavery, I am not familiar with the Trail of Tears. I?m sure it?s important, I just do not remember it from my history classes as it?s been to long since I?ve had one. I?m not trying to be difficult here, but I really do not see how it?s disgusting. Should we turn around and praise the government for abolishing slavery as well?[/QUOTE] Trail of Tears was when President Jackson told the Native Americans to migrate west, and made them go by force. It was a bloody and violent march across hundreds of miles on foot, and many died. A bit off topic... We do praise the government for abolishing slavery. It's why everyone loves Lincoln, lol. But at the same time, that praise was somewhat drowned out by the next hundred years of second-class citizenship and general exploitation, so pardon folks for not crying out a Hallelujah chorus to the government. [QUOTE]True, issuing such a statement probably would take little time, but trying dead people still doesn?t really change anything. Though it probably does help the families find closure like you mentioned.[/QUOTE] Well, Saddam Hussein is still on trial for his war crimes so that we can write down in the history books all the stuff he did to people. He was hanged a while ago, but his name is still being tried so that he goes down in history as what he was and not hearsay. Likewise, I think the situation applies to those who hurt and killed black people -- the names of the perpetrators will be painted red for all to see, and the families will finally feel avenged, if you will. [quote name='John']Well see, that's where you've gotta start being careful about this stuff. Because when you take that line of thinking you're in severe danger of thinking of the government no longer as an ever-changing collective of individuals but as a singular, enduring entity, which it isn't.[/quote] Rest assured, I see the government as a cycle of individuals, which is why I did distinguish between the current administration and the supporters of slavery. But if you'll see my aforementioned CEO analogy, maybe my point will come across clearer? It's a tough sentiment to communicate. In general, I'm not calling for my 40 acres and a mule like some black people are, but a "Alright, the government did mess up back then" would suffice.[/size]

[quote name='White][COLOR=DimGray][FONT=Tahoma]Another piece of advice I would give is not to ask out close friends. I mean, I know it seems like a [i]good[/i] idea to date someone you [i]know[/i] is genuine but it's really not. It makes for awkward moments. You're used to being just friends so making that step to dating can be extremely difficult.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] [size=1]I'm going to disagree with this, sry m8. Part of a relationship, to me, was being comfortable with the person and knowing who they are. Basically, my philosophy (haha) is that you really should be at least good friends with the person you want to ask out. Most teenage relationships don't last very long because they ask out people they don't really know, and so when they realize they have glaring personality differences, they break up. So I guess you don't need to be super-close, but go for friendship first, then for a relationship.[/size]

[size=1]I think the government owes those exploited in the past a formal apology. It's not that Bush or those alive today are responsible for the atrocities their fathers committed, but that the United States and the federal government as an entity is responsible for condoning those acts. As it stands, there has been no formal admittance that the US government was at fault for things like the Trail of Tears, slavery, etc, and I find that disgusting. It's not wasting time when it come be better served improving current situations, because preparing a speech that says "We're really sorry this stuff happened in the past as a result of the US government" isn't really all that time consuming. And trying those who committed horrible crimes of the past is part of justice. Sure, the perpetrators might be dead by now, but it is our obligation to bring their names to justice and as a result, help give closure to the families affected. I really did appreciate it when the Pope had that day of mourning, atonement, and apology for the things the Catholic Church did wrong.[/size]

[quote name='Raiyuu']Shame on you IM / phone people. Those ways just lead to misunderstandings, because you can't read the person's face or body language. Plus, they scream to the person you're asking, "I'm too socially inept to ask you in person!"[/quote] [size=1]I see your point, but I'm not really sure how much body language you need to read to decipher the hidden meaning of "I really like you, will you go out with me?" As for the whole socially inept thing, I think it depends on everyone's specific situation, and largely you're right. It could mean more you're nervous, you can't get time alone with them to ask them, or you're socially inept. I'm glad she asked me this time around though. :p[/size]

[size=1]Well, let's see. I asked my current girlfriend out on the phone in like... December. She said no, but we remained great friends. We're now going out (she asked me this time via phone). I'd recommend just chatting with a person on AIM. It's great for having extremely long and comfortable conversations where you get to know the person, maybe hit on them, etc. But if you're going to ask them out, I suggest the phone or in person. You truly do get courage points for doing it on the phone or in person. I feel the girl takes me more seriously if I put myself out there and ask her out on a more personal medium. As an aside: a guy at my school asked someone out to prom via MySpace message. I lol'd.[/size]

[quote name='Nerdsy][color=deeppink']It's currently being regulated effectively. On a small scale, yes, but I never said regulation had to be federal.[/color][/quote] [size=1]It might have to be if you're pushing for like a widespread legalization of prostitution. [QUOTE][color=deeppink]Well... if we were to tax brothels, we'd get the money to regulate it. Businesses help fund the government, after all, so more would help. I'm not saying it's as simple as that, but it is a factor to consider.[/color][/QUOTE] I suppose, but we also need to contribute taxes to the government to pay for government services.[/size]

[quote name='Nerdsy][color=deeppink']Illegality begets illegality, that's obvious. But I'm going to need to see evidence of legal prostitution having the same effects before I'll accept your position.[/color][/quote] [size=1]Regulation of prostitution is no small task, and if you're willing to commit the resources necessary to it then go ahead and try. But if you legalize prostitution and cannot effectively enforce regulations, then it's quite possible you'll have more brothels with no comparable increase in regulation. Until we can regulate prostitution "closer than water supply" as r2vq said, I am adamantly opposed. Because of legalization without effective regulation, you'll still have walkers, STDs, and trafficking, but on a broader scale. Now personally, I don't think it feasible at this moment to put forth the funding and government man-power to regulate prostitution (and we really shouldn't be spending taxes on prostitution regulation at times like these anyway, lol). I would assume something comparable to the FDA would need to be created in order to ensure worker and client safety, as well as community integrity.[/size]

[quote name='r2vq']Drugs and blue-collar crime are only a problem in an environment that allows drugs and blue collar crime to occur.[/quote] [size=1]Prostitution is conducive to that environment. There is a strong correlation between prostitution and drugs/blue collar crime. Which causes the other is up for debate, but there is a strong link between the two. [QUOTE]Having the proper screening for drugs (in the same way that professional athletes should be screened) solves the problem of drugs.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about within a brothel, I'm talking about in an area that has legal prostitution. [QUOTE]Having a professionally run brothel that takes care of the safety of their women would prevent any form of violence or crime that wouldn't be found in any other professional establishment.[/QUOTE] Fair point, but like Raiyuu kind of was getting at, brothels probably won't be able to stay open using volunteers (like signing up for a job). Therefore it is a fair assumption to make that human trafficking would continue to occur to support the industry. [QUOTE]What sort of crimes are you worried about exactly?[/QUOTE] Homicide, mugging, robbery, selling drugs... all of those have a strong correlation with prostitution. [QUOTE]Street walkers, like BlueMoon mentioned, create problems like the ones we see today. They open up opportunities for slave trading and drug use.[/QUOTE] Well, they exacerbate the problem, but human trafficking can still happen if people aren't walking around. I fail to see how keeping them in a building would make them any less susceptible "slavery," since trafficking gets them into the business, not on the corner necessarily. [QUOTE]Having a prostitute on the corner of your street will bring down land value and diminish any hope of having a clean neighborhood appearance. But having strict laws that allow prostitution without allowing street walkers would help prevent that.[/QUOTE] Agreed, and you're right here. But I think it's ridiculously difficult to regulate prostitution so that very little trafficking, STDs, or walkers are found. Like you said earlier, it'd need to be closer regulated than our water systems, which is quite a task. I can't help but feel it's easier to make it illegal rather than risk an increased number of human rights abuses, greater number of STD infections, and worrying about keeping walkers off the street. [QUOTE]Drugs, should they be legalized? Your argument is that since it's not harming anybody but the consenting adult and regulating it would make it much safer, which are our arguments for prostitution. The difference is that in our arguments of monitoring prostitution wouldn't allow for as much harm as the allowing drugs would. As Nerdsy said, there's a [i]very high[/i] success rate for preventing any sort of harm for the consenting adults in question. Keep in mind that STD prevention comes not only from weekly doctor visits, but from properly practiced safe sex. Allowing somebody to do drugs means a hundred percent chance of letting them get hurt. This is where the two arguments differ.[/QUOTE] The big thing here is regulation. You're right, assuming prostitutes practice safe sex and everyone's tested. But the odds of that happening are slim unless a very powerful overseeing system is in place, and people will most of the time pay more for unprotected sex. So I could see it being legalized if and only if the industry were subjected to very strict regulations that could be enforced quickly and efficiently. But the odds of that happening, at this point in time anyway, are pretty low.[/size]

[quote name='Nerdsy][color=deeppink]There's a difference between spreading disease and taking narcotics. No matter how regulated drugs like heroin and cocaine are, there's still a risk of overdose. Also, the very [i]act[/i'] of taking something like heroin and cocaine is damaging in and of itself.[/color][/quote] [size=1]Yes, there is a difference, but they also have quite a bit in common. Spreading diseases is extremely bad, and it hurts others as well as just yourself. Taking narcotics hurts yourself, and in turn can damage your relationship with those around you. Yes, the very act of taking a narcotic is damaging in and of itself, but prostitution can be dangerous as well, especially in its current state. [QUOTE]Again, with sex, anything damaging can be prevented with a [i]very[/i] high success rate. I believe in Nevada, STDs in the business are virtually unheard of.[/QUOTE] I would personally like to see at least a bit of information on this Nevada case. I have a feeling it's being exalted as this gleaming example of how prostitution can work, when there are negatives being ignored. [QUOTE]Us pro's can recognise that situations may differ, and that one argument may not hold up for both of them. ; )[/QUOTE] Yes, the two situations may not hold up perfectly for both of them, but my main point is this: Both things, prostitution and narcotics are kind of dangerous in their current state (illegal and unregulated). Those in support of legalizing prostitution, I assume, would say it's only dangerous now because it's illegal, lacks regulation, and due to its illegal status is in higher demand. Through legalization, it would become relatively safe. Likewise, with narcotics would become safer due to that regulation and society would be better off with it legalized so that shady stuff didn't happen with needles and overdosing and such. Furthermore, you should support this initiative, as you pro's seem to have adopted the "It's your own body, whatever" stance. By that logic, taking narcotics is completely justified, so long as they don't hurt someone else in the process. Prostitution has great potential to hurt those involved in the business. Yes, you can regulate things, but the people involved in the brothel run an extremely high chance of getting an STD -- it only takes one guy infected with it to transmit it. And even if they get tested once a week, that lives a window of ~5 days to transmit that disease to others. And that's completely ignoring human trafficking that inevitably occurs to keep business going. [QUOTE]Any problems with land prices could be solved with regulation. Make sure they're doing business somewhere out of the way.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, although you also have the problem of drugs and blue-collar crime following prostitution wherever it pops up.[/size]

[size=1]I don't understand how people say "Prostitution doesn't really impact me, so I don't care." It seems like a very callous point of view to ignore something solely because it has no impact on your life. Prostitutes are often exploited, and human trafficking pops up to feed the lucrative business that it is. And yes, land value [i]does[/i] drop with a hooker on your corner, because most people don't really want that on their doorstep. Drugs and blue collar crime follow, and the area becomes very dingy. Prostitutes are subject to abuse by their pimps and clientèle. Sure, you can legalize it, but there will continue to be trafficking, a great deal of abuse and exploitation, and a degradation of the area in which it's legalized. Yes, it's a person's own business what they do with their bodies, but when that leads to a slew of other problems (and an infraction on other's personal freedoms), that right must be abridged. Go ahead and legalize prostitution, because by the pro's logic, it would let it be safer and more regulated. The legalization of heroin and cocaine follow that same logic as well.[/size]

[size=1]I'm against the legalization of prostitution. Raiyuu summed up the biggest objection I had, which is that it can usually be tantamount to sex-slavery or trafficking. But aside from that, prostitutes often drag an area down in terms of land value, and with them drugs and petty crime are almost sure to follow.[/size]

[size=1]Cool idea, Boo. [b]Name:[/b] Mom [b]Real name:[/b] Jolene [b]Current age:[/b] 45 [b]Height:[/b] 5'6" [b]Hair:[/b] Kind of light brown and curly, but she looooves straightening it. [b]Eye color (NO U IN COLOR IN AMERICA):[/b] Brown My mom's a State Legislator (aka "Delegate") for the 47th District of Maryland. Think of the US Senate. Okay, she's in the state version of that, meaning she's in the Maryland State Senate. She hears bills, debates them, and ultimately votes on it. It's kind of cool to me, considering I want to go into something like that. She's a real go-getter. She doesn't take no for an answer, she's always the one first to fight something unjust, and she speaks her mind. In a lot of ways, I've picked up her confrontational attitude and persistance. I mean, for god's sake she sleeps at the office and comes home twice a week (The State pays for her hotel room when she does that) just so she can attend more meetings and hearings. She can also be kinda... pushy. Like I said, she doesn't take no for an answer, and if she wants her way, she'll fight like hell to get it. Resistance, while not always futile, isn't easy or much fun. And if she's mad, she kind of has a way of taking it out on those around her. In closing, my mom > ur momlokthxbai.[/size]

[quote name='Nerdsy][color=deeppink']I love how a mod posted a way to get past registration.[/color][/quote] [size=1]...It's on Google when you search for "Otakuboards". It's not exactly hidden to begin with, and the account will be gone soon enough.[/size]

[size=1]Interestingly enough, there's also a fake user/password thing [b][url=http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.otakuboards.com]here[/url][/b] that is for OB. Odd.[/size]

[quote name='Farto the Magic][FONT=Trebuchet MS][COLOR=DarkGreen] I'm at the end of my rope. The only option I can think of is to push them together and hope for failure. Any other options anyone can think of?[/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote] [size=1]No one said this was going to be fast or fun. I would recommend not pushing them together, and just playing the nice guy to Sue. Be there for her, listen to her frustrations, sympathize, hang out whenever you have time. Just in general aim to be a good friend. Odds are, when these two break up (it will be eventually if it's as crazy as you say it is) she'll look to the next man in line, ideally you. Don't appear to be jealous or frustrated. Don't appear ambitions or manipulating for your personal gain. Those will only repel her.[/size]

[quote name='taperson][SIZE=1][COLOR=RoyalBlue]I'mma go out on a limb and say that he meant the one at the top of the Lounge...[/COLOR'][/SIZE][/quote] [size=1]Here I come to claim my rightful title of disabled member![/size]

[size=1]I don't think so, as there'd be no way to add articles or suggest additions or amendments.[/size]

[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue']Because if you had read the book he recommended you would know that it?s not about why he feels afraid, but rather understand your thought processes and how you see things incorrectly. Which in turn can lead to being afraid since you are going off a faulty premises.[/COLOR][/quote] [size=1]Fair enough. I was mainly referring to the being afraid part, as it is the only one relevant to the topic at hand. [QUOTE]Rachmaninoff already touched on it briefly with the description on how we assume someone thinks something about us when the reality is we don?t know what they are actually thinking. The ten thought processes in the book are actually how we process information incorrectly (by making certain assumptions) and it applies to more than being nervous about talking to someone you don?t know, it applies to quite a few situations in life.[/QUOTE] Well, I'm sure these ten though processes apply later on in life (and outside social fear, I would assume). But I'm not really sure how helpful a book that tells you ten different ways you could be wrong is. The general thrust (relevant to the point at hand) is that you are afraid of social interaction... the precise reasoning behind it matters little (i.e. Fears of rejection or embarrassment or inadequacy). The only thing that really matters is that you are afraid of talking to a new person. [QUOTE]has a workbook to go along with it for analyzing your performance later, to look back and help you address your fears, regardless of what they are.[/QUOTE] This aspect seems quite useful. Learning from your mistakes and improving upon them are all part of the process... which ([i]shock![/i]) involves putting the book down, taking a deep breath, and starting a conversation. [QUOTE]And to be blunt, how would you know if he already knows what is in books? You didn?t even know what was in the book Rachmaninoff was referring to.[/QUOTE] I don't need to know what book Rachmaninoff was referring to. The only thing that matters is that cancer knows how to handle social situations, as he said he has absolutely no problem carrying on a conversation with people he is comfortable with, and only has problems when he doesn't know the person. From this, I inferred that he just feels uncomfortable and awkward around the person. Therefore, if cancer has no social problems (as demonstrated by his ability to talk to familiar people), then it is [i]most likely[/i] just a matter of working up some courage. You don't need a book to coach you on that, or so I assume. [QUOTE]I?m kind of curious as to why you are so anti-book here.[/QUOTE]They killed my father and beat my mother! I'll never forgive them... ;__; But really, I'm not anti-book, just anti-dumb-book. I see you conveniently overlooked this:[quote name='Retribution']The books that teach you how to carry on conversation are the valid and helpful ones. I actually did read one, and although it was rehashing stuff I thought as common sense, it did offer great advice.[/quote]I'm mostly just against books that say "Here's why your afraid!" as a means of remedying your social fear. I mean, really, if you know you're afraid of talking to new people what help is it to know that you're afraid specifically of female rejection? Because at the end of the day, no matter which way you slice it, you're going to have to talk to a girl you don't know and confront that awkwardness. cancer, go get 'em, champ. ;D[/size]

[size=1]The book you recommended was to help cancer figure out why he feels afraid to talk to new people. I stand by my claim in saying those books really don't do much aside from tell you what you probably already know "You're afraid of embarrassment, rejection, and you want to remain safe." That provides you with no real information on how to improve your situation. The books that teach you how to carry on conversation are the valid and helpful ones. I actually did read one, and although it was rehashing stuff I thought as common sense, it did offer great advice. But you can't rely on those either. You have to, ultimately, walk up to that person and say hello. The biggest battle is within yourself, and that's something a book can only mildly alleviate. cancer does not have social problems if he can easily hold a conversation with a friend, but has trouble talking to new people. It reinforces my point that he's only afraid and nervous in these alien situations, which is normal. But it also reinforces my point that he also just needs to get over it and start talking. If he already has the tools, he just needs to put them to work. At this point, books would only teach him what he already knows.[/size]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']If only it were that simple. If simply opening your mouth and speaking was all it took, people would find getting over such social awkwardness fairly easy.[/quote][size=1]It is. All that holds them back is fear to take that risk. [QUOTE]Because once they started doing it they would continue doing so, or so the idea goes. But people don?t, they freeze up, they become paralyzed with irrational fears and end up retreating instead of opening their mouth and speaking, or worse they do and then feel stupid for doing so.[/QUOTE]Rome wasn't built in a day, and social skills don't appear as a result of talking to one person you didn't know for one day. The ability to hold a conversation without fear is the result of much experience, and as a result, greater self-confidence. [QUOTE]No it?s not a step by step deal, but there are things people can learn to help them understand their own thought processes and therefore help them understand why they hesitate, or why they are frightened of speaking to strangers. A good example would be the book ?Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy? by Steven Burns. Though it is mainly used to treat depression without using drugs, it also addresses what he refers to as cognitive distortions, or ways of thinking that are negative that people don?t even realize that they do.[/QUOTE]It's a bit ridiculous people need a book to cure social anxiety. Unless you have a diagnosed phobia, you have little excuse. People hesitate because they're afraid of rejection, to put it simply. They don't want to feel embarrassed or awkward, and they feel inadequate. They're afraid if they open their mouth, they'll just make themselves look stupid, so they keep their mouth shut. Reading a book might give you insight as to why this occurs, and how you can combat it, but in the end, I [i]guarantee[/i] the solution it offers is "Talk to people". Because if you don't eventually take that risk, you'll never progress, no matter how many damn books you want to read. [QUOTE]He lists ten different types of negative thought patterns that a lot of people do and you might be surprised once you read it to find just how many of them you yourself do as well.[/QUOTE]Sure, but I don't let those fears hold me back in a social setting. I might be afraid I'll look kind of dumb and lowly, but I still suck it up and talk. Mostly, I'm not sure it matters why you feel afraid to talk in public (unless you have a phobia or something equally legit). For once you understand "I'm afraid because I'm afraid of rejection," what does that help? It only matters what you can do to overcome that, and books giving you tips on how to carry on a conversation are the good ones. The ones psychoanalyzing you and saying "Oh, you must be afraid because [insert reason]" really do nothing in terms of helping you out.[/size]