Nerdsy

[quote name='MistressRoxie][color=#9933ff][size=1]Teenage boys are ridiculously transparent with their feelings.[/size'][/color][/quote] [color=deeppink]I've found that a general inability to recognize the signs kind of cancels that out. This applies to both sexes, mind you. I've always sent my crushes letters. That ended horribly every time, so I wouldn't suggest that. Of course, maybe it was because I wrote them mostly in Klingon...[/color]

[quote name='Retribution][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.[/size][/quote] [color=deeppink]It's currently being regulated effectively. On a small scale, yes, but I never said regulation had to be federal.[/color] [quote]Because of legalization without effective regulation, you'll still have walkers, STDs, and trafficking, but on a broader scale.[/quote] [color=deeppink]I suppose I should clarify; I'm really only saying legalize brothels. Walkers should stay illegal, as it would really be all that much harder to regulate and would completely cancel out my suggestion to keep them out of the way. Besdies, walkers wouldn't really increase if brothels were made legal. Nor would they decrease. They're really a problem unrelated to brothels.[/color] [quote]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.[/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. Besides, who knows how many other businesses this could invigorate.[/color]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Wow, way to get offended by a simile. Nice one. My point was, there's not going to be a brothel in an area that has no need for brothels. The best buy mormon deal was simply that mormons don't use electricity, or at least that's what people think. I don't really know, i'm not mormon. And, are you mormon? [/FONT][/COLOR][/quote] [color=deeppink]Yeah, Sunfall didn't seem to be offended. More like, she noticed a wildly innaccurate comparison and corrected you. EDIT: Okay, wrote this before she posted. So yeah. Called it almost word for word![/color] [quote][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Ah, seems to me like somebody's never heard of supply and demand. Let me break it down for you. There is an inverse relationship between the two, as in, if one goes up the other goes down. If the amount of prostitutes go up the need for them will go down. And if there is less of a need of prostitutes there will be a less of a need of the slave trade of prostitutes. It's fairly simple logic, my friend. Of course, i'm only speaking within the united states. I'm sure it'll continue in third world contries and all that crap. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Let's not oversimplify here. In practice, it turns out, "sex slavery" does [i]not[/i] go down with the legalization. Let's put it this way; hydrocodones are legal, yes? However, they're regulated and you can only get them (legally) with a prescription. Of course, they're still bought and sold illegally. It's really the same with prostitution; the regulation would still allow for an illegal trade. Besides, supply and demand isn't some all-powerful force that makes everything better. To put it simply, if it's done illegally, the pimp or whoever is going to make more money by exploiting his or her workers. They have no incentive to go legal.[/color]

[color=deeppink]Retribution, when you talk about what accompanies prostitution (drugs, crime rates, etc) it seems you're talking about what accompanies [i]illegal[/i] prostitution. But there's a big difference between the effects of a legal activity and an illegal one. 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 name='Retribution][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.[/size][/quote] [color=deeppink]Again, regulating prostitution would take away a great deal of the danger, whereas with drugs no amount of regulation can make taking them even remotely safe. And no, I'm not saying regulation would make prostitution absolutely safe. Nothing is absolutely safe. I'm saying that it would make it safe [i]enough[/i] that there really aren't any grounds to keep it illegal.[/color] [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] [color=deeppink]Well, for my first example, I was just using Nevada to show that prostitution wouldn't fold if legalized. For the second, regarding the lack of HIV, I was a sourced statement from Wikipedia, but the linked source apparently doesn't exist anymore. So, here's [URL=http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/body/repro/nevada.html]this.[/URL] A little old, but it shows that regulation can work to halt the spread of disease.[/color] [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.[/quote] [color=deeppink]Not safe enough to warrant legalization. Yes, regulating drugs would help to take care of a lot of the problems with illegal drugs, but they are still inherently dangerous. You can't OD off sex.[/color] [quote]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.[/quote] [color=deeppink]While some of the others have, I personally have not taken this position. I'm saying that, regulated, the risks involved in prostitution become low enough to be acceptable. I don't [i]ever[/i] adhere to the "it's you own body" thing. Ever.[/color] [quote]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] [color=deeppink]Let's put this into perspective. According to [URL=http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm]this,[/URL] at least HIV is hard enough to spread through sex without a condom, let alone with. Various others are curable, and also preventable with the use of a condom. The risk is not that high if protection is used. Further, STDs have been noticably absent in Nevada brothels. Of course, this is from an unsourced Wikipedia statement, so take that as you will. I'd say human trafficking is also not inevitable. I suppose that depends on what you look at it as. With a liberal enough interpretation, a job at McDonalds could be viewed as human trafficking.[/color]

[color=deeppink]I've managed to resist owning anything anything relating to the ***** Cat Dolls. Wait, scratch that; Weird Al uses their lyrics in his newest polka medley. Doesnt' count! I'm still free from their suck! I hide nothing from my friends. I'll proudly flaunt my Britney Spears, Moulin Rouge soundtrack, Luthor Vandross (even though I don't really know who that [i]is[/i]), Lou Bega.... Especially Lou Bega. Everybody loves a good mambo.[/color]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']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][/quote] [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. 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. Us pro's can recognise that situations may differ, and that one argument may not hold up for both of them. ; ) Any problems with land prices could be solved with regulation. Make sure they're doing business somewhere out of the way.[/color]

[quote name='Raiyuu']Maids and bin men aren't forced to wash dishes or take out the rubbish because they can't pay their debts.[/quote] [color=deeppink]Um, of course they are. Perhaps not all of them, but you can't just write off a whole profession as free of something like that. Money mismanagement (and being forced to take menial jobs) isn't that uncommon, I believe.[/color] [quote]As far as I know there's no black market trade in maids or bin men, where penniless refugee women are shipped in airtight containers and sold to maid services or waste disposal businesses. Maids and bin men aren't forcibly addicted to class A drugs by their bosses as a way of keeping them tethered. The clientele of maids and bin men aren't likely to smack them around or force them to perform unpleasant dishwashing or bin-emptying favours.[/quote] [color=deeppink]I wonder how much of that is true only because maids and bin men aren't illegal.[/color] [quote]Just a couple more differences to add to your 'only' one. And I suppose it's fair to assume that a lot of those unpleasant side-effects of prostitution could be ironed out with close monitoring. But then, if it were a legal trade, with government watchdogs, health and safety posters, etc., it would probably fold for lack of 'raw materials'. Prostitutes are often forced into that line of 'work' through debt, or because they're forced to by pimps. Make it a recognised trade sector and how many women do you think are going to actively [i]volunteer[/i] to sell themselves?[/quote] [color=deeppink]Doesn't seem to have folded in Nevada. I think you're underestimating what people are willing to do for money.[/color]

[color=deeppink]Dead's working the streets? My prayers have been answered! I'd better save up. I'm for it. Keep it nice and regulated, of course, but yeah. By all means.[/color]

[QUOTE=Rachmaninoff]If you read the site guidelines it isn't a way to bypass registration, it's simply been done by someone else. It even advises you to make fake accounts that you don't intend to use and post them there for others to use eventually. A bit silly perhaps, but by no means a method of getting past registration. Well other than the obvious part that someone already did it for you. [/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Well, that's still bypassing registration. Yes, [i]somebody[/i] has to register, but that allows (hypothetically) countless people to post without registering. It's in the same vein as hiding behind a group of people in order to sneak into a movie. Sure, those people have paid to get in, but the one hiding didn't. He or she bypassed paying.[/color]

[quote name='Retribution][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][/quote] [color=deeppink]Doesn't mean I can't appreciate the irony. Also, according to the member list, this "nona" account isn't even there to begin. And yet, it allowed me to log on. Interesting quirk. [/color]

[quote name='Retribution][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] [color=deeppink]I love how a mod posted a way to get past registration.[/color]

[QUOTE=RobinWH]exactly.... these shows you used as examples are RESTRICTED BY LAW from using the f-word. although i have seen/hear alot more use of some of the less harsh words in the recent past (bi**h amongst others). kids will either hear it on the playground, in a movie, from a parent, or ON TV there is no SURE way to ever guard them from EVER hearing swear words .....unless you live in the middle of nowhere with no TV, internet or socialization....[/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]I don't think the point here is to protect the kiddies. It's saying how great it is that writers aren't equating cussing with good writing. Of course, the only television shows this (that is, the bandying about of the f-bomb) would really apply to would be the original series on HBO or Showtime. I have neither station, so I really can't comment on whether they've declined, although I'm pretty sure Penn and Teller hardly hold back. Personally, I couldn't care either way. If they're used well, then by all means! Cuss up a storm. I mean, some things require it. If I ever see a Samuel L. Jackson parody on TV, there better damn well be some cursing.[/color]

[QUOTE=Humaru][SIZE=4][FONT=Palatino Linotype][COLOR=DarkRed] I would choose the katana to go out in style and like a warrior. Left and right I would cut my way to victory and escape. No one could stop me if I had that weapon.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Except a guy with a gun.[/color]

[quote name='NIKI12345']Just be careful and stay away from drugs that aren't allowed. If animals aren't eating it then you shouldn't either.[/quote] [color=deeppink]Is it [i]only[/i] illegal drugs you're worrying about? Like I mentioned ealier, my ribcage was almost broken by someone on a perfectly legal drug. Aside from that, he threw things at me, and nearly fell into a fire himself. Not a fun night. Further, I can think of at least one other legal drug that is very dangerous health-wise, although I am admittedly using a lose interpretation of the word "drug." I'm also a bit unsure about whether or not it's illegal to ingest it, but I'm sure you get my point. Illegal drugs aren't the only dangerous ones, m'dear. And alternatively, legal drugs aren't the only "safe" ones. For the record, I don't do drugs. Hell, I'm even wary about using advil or something like that.[/color]

[quote name='AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon']That's cool. But then, I have to ask: what's your stance on suicide? Shouldn't be done but not immoral? IMO, it's immoral, that's why I ask. ^^[/COLOR][/quote] [color=deeppink]I haven't really made up my mind about suicide. At the moment, I'd say it's morally neutral. On the whole, I'd say that it should be stopped. After all, if everyone started killing themselves, society would be decimated. However, I can also think of some cases where I don't feel anyone should have a right to stop it. Those mostly involve terrible diseases, and, like drinking, people should be of a certain age before allowed to make that decision.[/color]

[QUOTE=NIKI12345] Actually its a oppinion. A propaganda is a way to convice others to do something. No its like a choice of many other oppinion choices like bangwagon effect or scaretatic. All different ways to show a opinion. Just to let you know.[/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]What? Beyond "a propaganda is a way to convice others to do something", I have no idea what you're trying to say. Yes, a lot of what Rachmaninoff said was opinion, but opinions are propaganda too. Retribution, if you notice, there is more than one definition there. [quote name='dictionary.com']The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. [/quote] [quote name='dictionary.com']Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. [/quote] [quote name='dictionary.com]']information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause [/quote] [color=deeppink]As for the definition you used, no, scientists saying that doesn't make it propaganda. But people posting about what scientists say sure as hell does. : p From there, the only point of contention would be "spread widely", but that just means it falls much under the next definition, "The deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc."[/color] [quote name='Retribution][size=1']No, but it makes not paying attention while driving 'immoral'. Likewise, driving while high doesn't make driving immoral, but driving while under the influence.[/size][/quote] [color=deeppink]That's pretty much my point. Responsibility is the key factor when determining morality here, at least to me. As for detrimental effects to the society at large... I recall opium being legal and very popular way back when. Society didn't seem to suffer to greatly, although there were frequent addictions. that, of course, can be said of something like sleeping pills or pain relivers, something very commonly used in societies. I can't say what would happen if we suddenly said, "Hey! Opiums legal now, get as much as you want!" But there is a historical [strike]example[/strike] piece of propaganda that shows it working. [/color]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']As far as I can tell, Rachmaninoff's posts were not propaganda as they are supported by the majority of the scientific community with fact (or as close as we can be to them at this point).[/size][/quote] [color=deeppink]Facts are information, and they're being used to prove a point. That's propaganda. [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda]Here's the definition if you don't believe me.[/URL] Just because its propaganda doesn't mean it's can't be true. ; )[/color] [quote=Retriubtion][size=1]A number of reasons. Most notable is that these drugs cause violent or irrational behavior in the user, to the point where their judgment is severely impaired. That opens the door for any number of scenarios were innocent parties can be harmed or killed. Additionally, selling contraband on the streets seriously screws a neighborhood. With illegal drugs come the crime and prostitutes. The land value plummets as well.[/size][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]A person not paying attention to the road might kill somebody. Does that make driving imoral? My point here is that taking drugs is not inherently immoral by any objective means. Sure, if you don't take the proper precautions, that could be considered immoral, but that could be said about a lot of things. I'm having a hard time putting that point into words, so I'll just say this. If Group B is entirely immoral, but is a smaller part of Group A, that doesn't mean [i]everything[/i] in group A is immoral. Making it legal would probably help subdue drug-related crime (much like re-legalizing alcohol stopped a lot of criminal behavior caused by prohibition in the US), and I personally wouldn't call prostitution immoral either. However, I know that's not a widely held opinion, and I'd rather not discuss that here. I don't have any idea what legalizing it would do for the land value. Mind you, I am in [i]no way[/i] saying drugs should be legal. In fact, I'm almost completely against it. My point is that any immorality in doing it would be coming from it being illegal (or doing it irresponsibly). This discussion is also focusing on legal drugs (alcohol, mainly) and I can think of two legal drugs, once of which may cause that irrational behavior and one of which is extremely dangerous. I'd say neither of those is immoral if used properly. So I'd put this under the "Breaking the law" category, and not simply "Doing drugs." [quote name='AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon']So you dislike big, bad parties. Try some small, nice parties with only close friends, not people that have probably never met or only once seen each other in the hallways.[/color][/quote] I hate those parties too, but good parties are... well, good![/quote][/color] [color=deeppink]Can't stand those, either, but for different reasons. I'm really only happy in groups of four or less. And to be fair, I've never been to a large, impersonal party aside from a school dance or two. Didn't like those, and from my understanding, real parties are much worse. [/color] [quote=AzureWolf][color=maroon]IMO, it's probably a bad choice of words that's making the problem in this thread. Maybe drugs aren't immoral at all. But, consider this: if you see a person running onto a street and going directly into a car's path, is it immoral to not do anything? Technically speaking, it's not immoral, but you should do something for the person. You aren't doing anything wrong, even if that other person is doing some type of harm to himself. Is it immoral to go out into the blazing cold to get medicine for a sick stranger even though you're the only one who can? Drugs are the same way. Sure, they aren't immoral per say, and people shouldn't care what others do per say... Yet there are a lot of drugs that, taken once, will define a good part of your life forever. Regardless of how many people who have done one drug fifty times and never experienced a side effect, that doesn't change the fact that others do experience them. LSD, for instance, is a drug that stays with you forever (ok, technically it doesn't, but its effects do). Relapses - however short or momentary - are forever imprinted in your head, waiting for a trigger to pull you back. It may not be addictive in the least, but your reality will never be... umm... real?[/color][/quOTE] [color=deeppink]My argument deals entirely with the morality of doing drugs. I'm perfectly fine with laws being made to keep save people from harm. Hell, I'd go as far as to say that it's immoral not to step in and save someone from harming themselves. But I don't think that self-harm is immoral.[/color] [quote name='indifference][color=maroon']Whether or not using illegal drugs is immoral or not isn't really the issue. [/color][/quote] [color=deeppink]Morality can have a big impact on whether or not somebody agrees with something.[/color]

[quote name='NIKI12345'] I mean who doesn't like parties. [/quote] [color=deeppink]*raises hand* I hate parties. They're loud, almost always have terrible music, everyone is obnoxious, and none of the activities hold any interest for me. I've actually gotten into (verbal) fights with people who keep trying to get me to go to one. I'd much rather curl up with a good book.[/color] [quote name='Rachmaninoff']Oh, sorry, I guess since you think it?s propaganda, in spite of all the cases where doctors have dealt with druggies and documented the known side effects and problems, [/quote] [color=deeppink]Just so you know, that's still propaganda, just like most of this thread. My post included. On to the topic. I don't drink or do drugs. I likely never will. It's because I don't want to, not that I think anything like ingesting something is wrong. Why are people so adamant about how drugs are immoral? Not necessarily the posters in this thread, mind you, but I know someone who refused to watch That 70's Show after they realized what The Circle was all about. Confusingly, she laughed at the scenes despite not knowing exactly what was going on, but I digress. I simply don't see how taking drugs, even the most self-damaging ones, is immoral. The only thing I can think of is that they're illegal, but it is illegal to perform a puppet show in my state. I'd hardly call that immoral. That doesn't even concern drinking for those of age. That being said, I can't stand being around someone who's drunk or high. One person tripping on a (perfectly legal) drug almost broke my ribcage, and very few drunks can hold a conversation without either yelling or babbling. [/color]

[color=deeppink]Assuming I start work now and retire at 60, all I have to do is make $25000 a year to "make or generate around or over $1,000,000 before I retire." Less if I retire later.[/color]

[QUOTE=NIKI12345]I have to admite he is also very funny here is one of his vids [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmZAXD9qZp4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmZAXD9qZp4[/URL][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]That's not Mitch Hedberg. [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IueXtzdC6kA][i]This[/i] is Mitch Hedberg.[/URL] [/color]

[QUOTE=Lunox][color=dimgray][spoiler] The thing about the baby being in the Underworld makes me wonder if Ofelia's ending never really happened. I felt the overarching theme of the entire movie was the idea that fantasy was the only outlet for a young girl like Ofelia, even if it wasn't true. Of course, there's plenty of evidence against that. The captain could see the mandrake, the flower blooming on the fig tree, etc. It's made pretty obvious that Ofelia's mother married the captain out of desperation. She was clearly unhappy, and her conversation with Ofelia about the harshness of life gave more hints. [/spoiler][/color][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink][spoiler]I hold the opinion that the fantasy world existed. It's hard to argue with it when she walks through walls. Mind you, this in no way means that Ofelia's ending never happened; just because the fantasy world was real doesn't mean she wasn't hallucinating at the end. Also, I must be blind. I didn't see the baby at the end. Where was he?[/color][/spoiler]

[QUOTE=Matt] Of course, her mother thinks it was drugs. How original. [/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Originality has nothing to do with accuracy.[/color]

[color=deeppink]I don't recall theOtaku and OB [i]ever[/i] being explicitly connected. At most, there was a post or two by Adam about the version updates and a theOtaku and OB upgrade that happened at the same time. There was also a thing where Adam was selling hosting on theOtaku, but that never actually materialized so I don't count it. It has gotten farther apart, but as far as I can tell, only by theOtaku removing (or hiding very thoroughly) any links to OB. I'd say even when OB didn't [i]have[/i] it's own url, it was still very disconnected from theOtaku. As a side note, is it really a good idea to try and link Gaia for credibility?[/color]

[color=deeppink]Thank God I didn't have to go through "Hoosier" to get this one. Indiana > President George W. Bush > Drunk Driving (United States) > Probable Cause > Arrest > Arrest Warrant [b]Care Bears[/b] to [b]Three Billy Goats Gruff.[/b][/color]