Allamorph

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']For some reason, this one seems oddly appropriate today.[/quote] [FONT=Arial][I]Someone[/I] woke up on the sarcastic side of the bed this morning. :p In the same vein: [CENTER][IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/10/tehstinkeie128655538362810481.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER][/FONT]

[quote name='Lunox][font=trebuchet ms'] Plan 9 from Outer Space.[/font][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Ehh, that doesn't work for me. Plan 9 was so epically bad it was amazing. :p The DiCaprio redux of [B]Romeo and Juliet[/B] made me want to spew either stomach contents or atrocities so vile that Satan himself would cover his ears. The pool scene was [I]especially[/I] tasteless and unnecessary, and was probably put there so people would sit through Shakespeare to get to be fanserviced. [B]Superbad[/B]. The name speaks for itself. Possibly the [I][B]only[/B][/I] funny moment in the movie was McLovin, and even that only the first time. Every other second I spent watching this movie was also spent wondering who in the world wrote the script, and what debilitating brain disorder they had self-inflicted to be able to write it. I'll try to think of some other horrors I've seen. [spoiler][I]*is avoiding Napoleon Dynamite because he knows he'll get crucified by [U]someone[/U]*[/I][/spoiler][/FONT]

[CENTER][FONT="Arial"]Hey hey. Looka-here. [IMG]http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/duran-duran-1986-gayer-than-advertised.jpg?w=470&h=350[/IMG][/FONT][/CENTER]

[CENTER][FONT="Arial"][B]Warning: Language[/B]-ish-ness. Kind of. Shaddup. [URL=http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Dave/comicbabytreated2.png][COLOR="Blue"]linky[/COLOR][/URL][/FONT][/CENTER]

[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial]Funny you say that, when abstinence-only education isn't practical anyway. Pragmatism dictates the discussion of safe sex in addition to abstinence. Abstinence-only education isn't reasonable. It's a childishly defiant way of looking at the world -- "Just don't have sex! You shouldn't have sex, so I won't tell you ways to make it safer." The reality is that [i]a fair percentage of teens are going to have sex[/i'], and with that considered, it is realistic to at least teach them how to protect themselves from pregnancy, disease, etc.[/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Heh. First off, let's deal with that little misconception you have about the beast called Abstinence. The Abstinence school of thought does not condemn sex, nor does it say not to engage in it. It says that sex should be abstained from [I]until one has their partner[/I], and it in no way restricts the act to two people for all time. I mean, how else could remarried divorcees have kids? From a Pragmatist standpoint, abstinence is the single most practical solution. If one does not engage in sex indiscriminately and instead waits until marriage (again the m-word!), the chances that one will contract a venereal disease are quite slim, and rest solely on one's partner having done the same. Thus, the consequences for waiting (or abstaining, which I know you know is the root of the practice) are almost none. Condoms and contraceptives only become the most practical solution [I]after[/I] a person has (defiantly, I might add) proclaimed that they will [I]not[/I] wait, but dick around however they please. At that point, they have taken the risks onto themselves, so why they should complain to those who advocated abstinence is beyond me; it was their choice not to take the most pragmatic route. (Incidentally, one can make the 'defiant' argument on both sides and not be wrong. I suggest you leave off of it, as it has no bearing on our actual debate, and is, in fact, profiling. I will do the same.) As far as the realistic angle goes..... [QUOTE][FONT="Arial"][I]...The reality is that [i]a fair percentage of teens are going to have sex[/i], and with that considered, it is realistic to at least teach them how to protect themselves from pregnancy, disease, etc. [CENTER]/~/[/CENTER] The reason I pick on the (specifically) Catholic/Evangelical refusal to distribute contraception or talk of the benefits of contraception is because it runs counter to Christian values. Rather than protest out of principle while hundreds of thousands of people become infected everyday, distribute condoms in Africa. Not only does it help preserve family structures, it allows countries to get back on their feet, it reduces human suffering, and it is certainly a component to economic strength. You can say "Christians should stick to their guns!" but that's fundamentally flawed. It fails to take into account the magnitude of human suffering that could be reduced had the Church taken the [i]spirit[/i] of the Bible, rather than the shallowly-interpreted written text. Essentially, their refusal to distribute condoms is contradictory and hypocritical.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE] Essentially, the reality is both that the Church is preaching in accordance to their beliefs, and a large number of people are not going to listen. And this is the way of the world. The continual preaching of Abstinence by the Church, then, is to continually remind people of the easiest way to avoid the diseases in the first place. All one has to say is "repeated momentary pleasure versus nastiness down below" and take the higher road. However, as you said [I]and[/I] I agree, a large amount of people will not do this. (And I agree with [COLOR=DarkRed]A_M[/COLOR]; bringing up Africa is essentially a cop-out. Why is it no one ever brings up the problems in Azerbaijan? Why is Africa so damned important? :p I call foul on the grounds of attempting to pull heartstrings with the intent to distract from the argument.) Looking at your last paragraph: do you honestly believe that the intent of Christianity is to prevent suffering? Good grief, man, I thought you understood things. Christianity preaches surcease [I]from[/I] suffering, not prevention of it. We believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. To give people the means to avoid consequences of what we believe is a sin is not pragmatic, but enabling. We would then be encouraging them to engage in an activity that we believe is not right. Translated: "You're doing the wrong thing, and there will be problems because of it; but it's dangerous to go alone—take this!" That is preaching one direction, and turning around and assisting the exact opposite. [I]That[/I], my friend, would be hypocrisy. [QUOTE][FONT="Arial"][I]I have mixed feelings about that I guess. On one hand, parents should be responsible for their children and teach their kids about sex. On the other hand, these children are citizens and thus the government is tasked with their safety and well-being. So high HIV/AIDS infection rates are certainly within the realm of concern for them, and education on these topics isn't outrageous.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE] On that we agree. And so you argue that the Church should still encroach upon the State's territory? Like I said before, the [I]secular[/I] community should be responsible for educating people on [I]secular[/I] options. It is not the responsibility of the Vatican to do so, and why you think so still eludes me. So once again: [list][*]Abstinence is the most practical solution from an objective standpoint. [*]Abstinence also happens to be a moral stance by the Church. [*]Claiming that a group of people should encourage an activity they frown upon is rather silly.[/list] One last thought on that selection: [QUOTE][I][FONT="Arial"]Not only does it help preserve family structures, [B]it allows countries to get back on their feet[/B], it reduces human suffering, and [B]it is certainly a component to economic strength[/B].[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE] How is economic security any business of the Vatican? Church and State, anyone? If you don't want us in your affairs, don't tell us we should be in your affairs. Or run the risk of having the hypocrisy argument tossed right back at ya. :animesmil [B]Edit:[/B] [quote name='Sara']There are legislators who would be happy to take that choice away.[/quote] Uhh . . . yes. Yes there are.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Why is it that a whole bunch of new members seem to think that we're going to murder them for posting something silly? I don't murder silly people. I murder people who blatantly refuse to think. Speaking of which....[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I was in science class in the seventh grade, chewing out the morons who thought the explosions were funny. Looking back, a lot of my confusion and uncomprehension got channeled into fury during that time. Our cool janitor had had a small heart attack not a week and a half before that, too.[/FONT]

[quote name='Lunar][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial Narrow"]ok, maybe not [I]drank[/I], but i took little sips. [/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] [FONT=Arial]You took "little sips" of Vick's vapor rub? [I]Seriously???[/I] . . . my gosh. What were you thinking?[/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial']I would say the goal of abstinence-only education is to have the students abide by abstinence, turn away from physical relations (at least until marriage).[/font][/quote] [FONT=arial]I'd say that would be the [I]ideal[/I] goal, but you and I both know that it's not at all practical when it comes to minors who have already spent a great deal of time developing their own values based on their environments, [I]and[/I] who typically scorn any involvement from the State. The [I]reasonable[/I] goal, then, would be to inform and encourage. Also, if you looked at the demographics of those who participate in the programs (assuming participation is voluntary), you would probably find that the only people who care are those who had previously held those beliefs, so again the program seems to be rendered partially ineffective. [QUOTE][FONT="Arial"][I]This can either be religiously motivated or secular, but you'll generally find the proponents of abstinence-only sex ed are religious. To these people, the idea is that sex is an act reserved for marriage, that ones body is a temple and virginity is a plus, etc.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE] Are you as amused as I am that the State seems to be taking a "religious value" stance? Whatever happened to the separation of the two? Actually, I really don't care whether the State teaches this at all. It's nice that they seem to be taking the interest, but until we become a completely socialist state, the burden for such education will rest solely on the child's community, and [I]heavily[/I] on the child's parents. That's the only way in which such education will be at all effective?and again, we both know that even this effort doesn't yield 100% "success". [QUOTE][I][FONT="Arial"](And yes, I know the analogy is not perfect :p)[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE] Understatement, much? :p I thought you wanted to stress the hormonal element. [QUOTE][I][font=arial]I also think the Catholic Church's refusal to distribute condoms in regions plagued by HIV/AIDS is even more foolish.[/font][/I][/QUOTE] Why should they? Logically, if everyone's already got it, no one needs protection. Kidding, of course. But seriously, why the massive focus on why the established (Christian, anyone? Pattern, much?) religions aren't stepping outside of their own doctrines and aren't catering to the secular sector? Wouldn't it seem more logical for them to actually stand by their beliefs and offer the aid that lay within? And from what you've said, that's what they appear to be doing. Hunh. It seems kind of foolish, then, to expect the Christian community to set aside their beliefs in deference to someone else's. I thought the whole concept of Relativism was to not let anyone force their beliefs on another. Why harass the Christians, then? Let them (let us, rather) preach abstinence, and find a secular group to preach contraceptives and birth control.[/FONT]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']Fair enough. From what I understand (I haven't been in school since 2000 and my daughter is only three going on four and wouldn't understand even the most basic sex talks except maybe the whole it's your body don't let anyone touch it) the abstinence only programs only teach students about abstaining from sex and the failure rate of condoms. There is nothing said about contraceptives or proper safe sex. It's just said that sex is bad and you shouldn't do it. Which in my humble opinion is stupidity in itsself. Yes sex is a big step. But It's not a bad thing- it's not a sin- and that's what many of these classes are saying.[/color][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Cool. This gives me two pieces of information. First, according you your perception (and mine as well), abstinence-only sex-ed is designed to [I]inform[/I] and [I]encourage[/I], [U]not[/U] to radically alter views of people who have already spent fifteen-odd years becoming acclimated to their current system. More specifically, the basic purpose would seem to be the enabling of teens to make a more informed decision about engaging in sex, and encouraging them to choose to wait until marriage. (Descry me now about the marriage institution at your leisure; I am stating observational data, not preaching.) Thus to claim that the practice "doesn't work" is not completely correct, for perhaps those who went through the program took their information and made an informed decision (much as you did) that it was a waste of time. Also, how many of those girls do you think took the pact for what it was, and how many for some fun thing to do with no real meaning behind it, or how many didn't bother to concern themselves with meaning at all? Second, it appears to me that this system might be ill-designed, since it is doubtful to me that the impression that "sex is a sin" is intended; I mean heck, that's not even a Christian view. However, further forays down this line of thought for me will inevitably lead to the ferocious conflict over marriage as an institution and its sacred quality, or no, and I'd rather not go there at the present. For now, suffice that I'm fairly certain we can all agree that sex (like basically [I]everything in the bloody world[/I][/exasperated rant at morons not currently being replied to]) is not inherently good or evil, but is an (intimate, in this case) act. So here I believe you are justified, if your perception is based off of the material, and not preconceived notions that those who advocate abstinence hold the same sinful view. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']Teaching abstinence only would be a wonderful idea if teenagers were all in bubbles and you could stop and think in the moment of passion wait, we shouldn't do this. But that's not the world we live in.[/color][/quote] Err. I worry about telling children that they won't be able to think or make snap decisions in the moment. I also worry about the notion that the moment is inevitable; I have been quite successful in in my avoidance of it, to be honest. (I have also scared someone who offered me liquor once, although I merely raised an eyebrow at him when he asked me if I was sure I didn't want it. People are funny sometimes.) I don't believe that anyone is incapable of discernment at any time. I agree that often people simply [I]don't[/I] think about things, but the capacity remains, and therefore the option out. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']OKay so now I've said my piece, I know you're dying to explain to me exactly what you think about the whole thing since you've scolded me twice for not agreeing with abstinence only. Tell me, why do you think it works?[/color][/quote] You are silly. (^_^) I'm just making sure you have your head on straight, so She Who Shall Not Be Named doesn't rip it off. Trust me, I'm far more patient. Mostly.[/FONT]

[quote name='Lrb][FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="DimGray"]What are you, his secretary? lol[/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Arial]He has more frequent contact with Adam than you do, buddy. :animesmil [quote name='Ace][FONT=Comic Sans']Considering that we're somewhat low-traffic these days, I'm pretty sure the only way we have a prayer of pulling this off is if we get Adam to announce it over at TheO.[/FONT][/quote] Well, if we announced it here far enough in advance, then certainly even with the low traffic people would see it eventually. But yeah, getting Adam to drop a shout-out wouldn't be a bad thing.[/FONT]

[quote name='Gelgoog Pilot']I also doubt doomsday is upon us, everyone knows that the Mayan calendar ends at 2012, not 2008.[/quote] [FONT=Arial]That . . . . . . wow. I just . . . wow. [I]*facepalm*[/I] Also: [CENTER][YOUTUBE]zeo0_3gN190[/YOUTUBE][/CENTER][/FONT]

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"']I find that statement to be highly contradictory. Perhaps you can explain it better?[/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Arial]That's because you've probably been indoctrinated into reading "pro-choice" as "pro-choose-abortion"; whereas saying you are "pro-choice" is simply saying you belief that a woman has the right to choose, and says nothing about which way you [I]will[/I] choose. Actually, the pro-choice stance is really a waste of words. Any time a woman becomes with child, she has to choose one way or the other (minor-age status aside, partially), and there is really no one else who can make the decision for her. Not even the Unborn has a say in its survival; it is completely up to the woman. In fact, 'right' has little to do with the issue at all, for the woman has no choice [I]but[/I] to choose one or the other. --------- @ [COLOR="DarkRed"]CHW[/COLOR]: If you claim that the program doesn't work, what do you believe is the intent of the program? Provide us this so that we may see if your concept lines up, and so determine if it is indeed failing at its goal.[/FONT]

[QUOTE=Quoth Serenity]:animeswea [COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]what's wrong with a [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9L84KSCnNs&feature=related"]tachicoma[/URL] - i guess that to understand fully then you have to see ghost in the shell...[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT=ARIAL]I think the point of this thread was more along the lines of what you would look like if rendered in anime style, not what anime character or thing you'd like to be like. I mean, heck, if I went by what I wanted to be, I'd have called Sōsuke Aizen, mister bust-your-being-into-tiny-bits himself.[/FONT]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']That was an attack on abstinence only education. If it's so great then why doesn't it work? Uh I don't know, because abstinence only is total BS.[/color][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Logic fail. Regardless of abstinence education, it was still her daughter's choice to have sex, and her daughter's choice to have the baby. The daughter is not bound by the decision(s) of the family . . . unless you want to back to the patriarchal rule system. Abstinence education is obviously not a substitute for parents teaching their children moral values (OMG LIEK NO WAI I SAID MORALS), but it does show that the state supports the idea. Also, the phrase is "the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the sons", not the other way around. So basically, how's about we keep the thread for political [I][U]humor[/U][/I], and leave off the political [I][U]mud[/U][/I] [I][U]slinging[/U][/I]. That seems fair.[/FONT]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][CENTER][IMG]http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f272/Chibi_horsewoman/Funny%20pictures/basementnutrutious.jpg[/IMG'][/CENTER][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Yes. Yes I do. And so should you.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Let's go, [B]jiggly[/B]! Yush. Although I did like the atmosphere of [COLOR="DarkRed"]Cat[/COLOR]'s, it feels like it's drawing too much on the "what education should be" card, like those commercials for universities, and the other two look better at the general feelings on the first day. And [COLOR="DarkRed"]jiggly[/COLOR] over [COLOR="DarkRed"]White[/COLOR] because I liked the smaller space, for some reason. Not really a quantifiable choice, there.

[FONT=Arial]Mitch's posts. The pretentiousness was like sewage in my mouth, even when I managed not to gag on the language. Also fresh tomatoes.[/FONT]

[CENTER][FONT="Arial"]And now for something completely different![/FONT] [IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/2/ihazacleese128648564641972697.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']If not someone please fix the tags- my poor brain gets sometimers.[/color][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Instead of trying to copy the coding, just right-click on the image, click "Copy Image Location", and put [I]that[/I] inside the IMG tags. That should fix it.[/FONT]

[FONT="Arial"]A blonde walks into a bank in New York City and asks for the loan officer. She says she is going to Europe on business for two weeks and needs to borrow $5,000. The bank officer says the bank will need some kind of security for the loan; so, the blonde hands over the keys to a new Rolls Royce. The car is parked on the street in front of the bank. She has the title and everything checks out. The bank agrees to accept the car as collateral for the loan. The bank's president and its officers all enjoy a good laugh at the blonde for using a $250,000 Rolls as collateral against a $5,000 loan. An employee of the bank then proceeds to drive the Rolls into the bank's underground garage and parks it there. Two weeks later, the blonde returns, repays the $5,000 and the interest, which comes to $15.41. The loan officer says, "Miss, we are very happy to have had your business, and this transaction has worked out very nicely; but, we're a little puzzled. While you were away, we checked you out and found that you are a multimillionaire. What puzzles us is, why would you bother to borrow $5,000?" The blonde replies, "The airport wanted to charge me two hundred dollars to store my car. Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $15.41 and expect it to be there when I return?" (Not all blondes are dumb.)[/FONT]

[CENTER][IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/1/128647907242206621.jpg[/IMG] [FONT="Arial"]Well-played. Also....[/FONT] [IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/1/igotsyouavam128647579685668041.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[CENTER][IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/3/26/portalurdoin128510629877187500.jpg[/IMG] [FONT=Arial]Of course, cats do it naturally.[/FONT][/CENTER]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']I'm currently obsessed with Hand of Sorrow and See who I am from Within Temptation.[/color][/quote] [FONT=Arial]I've been getting stuff from Within Temptation popping up on my Pandora station lately. Not bad stuff. My only complaint about them is that the soprano doesn't have a whole lot of strength to her upper range, so it ends up sounding like falsetto. It's not a bad technique, but I don't think it quite fits with the power of the band behind her. This criticism is the opposite end of the spectrum as my one gripe with Opeth. In their case, the sheer volume of rawness detracted from the ensemble sound. In Within Temptation's situation, there isn't quite [I]enough[/I] rawness, so the effect of the music is lessened somewhat, I think. Still a good band, though. [INDENT][B]Edit:[/B] Hunh. Just heard some selections from their 2007 album, and the power that I thought was lacking before has been made up in total. I think this is a group I'll look into.[/INDENT] I think my biggest surprise recently came when Evanescence's version of Mozart's [I]Lacrymosa[/I] (from his [I]Requiem Mass[/I]) came up in the queue. The [I]Requiem[/I] is my favorite work by Mozart, and the [I]Lacrymosa[/I] my favorite movement, so to hear it done in a symphonic metal setting was pure bliss. That single came from their Open Door album, which I shall probably be buying now. Yes. Just for that song, I'll be getting that album.[/FONT]

[quote name='chibi-master']Shouldn't your reaction be "WTF my house is on fire!!! Call 911! AAAAAAUUUUGH!!!", instead?[/quote] [FONT=Arial]Effect smoke and fire smoke are distinctly different. Smoke caused by fire tends to be very acrid-smelling, and rides on the heat of the air, close to the ceiling. Effect smoke is generated from dry ice sublimating (changing straight from ice to vapor) in the presence of water, typically hugs the ground like fog, and has a borderline dank smell. Also, people who have just learned their houses are on fire tend not to react like anime characters.[/FONT]