venomai

I've noticed the opposite with hip-hop. The more I listen to it, the more I appreciate the chill, laid-back and mellow songs.

Wallflowers Xzibit (rapper) EDIT: Sorry Sworddude, didn't see your post!

Tripsis, I suspect you have not heard a lot of rap. :lol: What do you look for in lyrics? Life as a blue collar worker? There are plenty of 'meaningful' and 'meaningless' songs in every genre of music.

Lil' Wayne is a commercial pop artist in the same field as Soulja Boy. They are "talented" at appealing to commercial interests, but beyond that, they do not have very much talent at all. :|

What did you expect? Pedophilia and religion are two very controversial topics.

This is a misrepresentation of pro-lifer's arguments. Very few argue against abortion on the sole grounds that you are "killing life." Rather, pro-lifers tend to see abortion as the unjustified killing of a legal person. The debate here stems from one's interpretation of "personhood."

Good picks. Low End Theory and Illmatic are both fantastic. Don't know the other two, but I'll check them out. I'm a huge fan of alternative and underground rap/hip-hop. I'm not such a big fan of commercial hip-hop (Kanye, Lupe Fiasco, Soulja, Lil' Wayne). Some of my favourites... Blue & Exile A Tribe Called Quest Digable Planets CYNE The Roots MC Lyte MURS Devin the Dude Pete Rock Dr. Octagon

Definite progress. :thumbup: Keep it up.

The risk she took was leaving her house, going to the bar or even going on a date. The likelihood of rape in these instances, albeit extremely low, certainly does exist. Even so, it would be unreasonable to prosecute women for drinking at a bar, aware of the risks of date rape.

The woman who opens her mesh-protected window is not 'gambling' any more than the soon-to-be rape victim "leaving home without a (reliable!) army." The latter also took the risk and failed, mind you, but it would hardly be reasonable to hold her responsible for her misfortune. What does being underage have to do with this? The majority of abortions in America are made by 20-39 year olds.[1] Abstinence as a contraceptive is not as effective as you make it out to be. [hide=]Researchers have two different ways of measuring the effectiveness of contraceptive methods. "Perfect use" measures the effectiveness when a contraceptive is used exactly according to clinical guidelines. In contrast, "typical use" measures how effective a method is for the average person who does not always use the method correctly or consistently. For example, women who use oral contraceptives perfectly will experience almost complete protection against pregnancy. However, in the real world, many women find it difficult to take a pill every single day, and pregnancies can and do occur to women who miss one or more pills during a cycle. Thus, while oral contraceptives have a perfect-use effectiveness rate of over 99%, their typical-use effectiveness is closer to 92% ... indeed, abstinence is 100% effective if "used" with perfect consistency. But common sense suggests that in the real world, abstinence as a contraceptive method can and does fail. ... For example, a recent study presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Psychological Society (APS) found that over 60% of college students who had pledged virginity during their middle or high school years had broken their vow to remain abstinent until marriage.[/hide] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060504.html

Your arguments are absolutely absurd and, if anything, are counterproductive to the defense of abortion... Parcedon is not arguing technicalities, or using "killing" too loosely (you, on the other hand, are). Parcedon claims that human life begins at conception and thus, by definition, active termination is murder (i.e. "unlawful killing of another human with intent to do so"). Parcedon is suggesting that abortion is murder regardless of how many days, weeks or months the human life has been developing for. (He may, however, be using "human being" too loosely.) Which brings me to my next question: Parcedon, what is your stance on pregnancy due to rape?

Yes, but, in this respect, it is most often used as a synonym of murder [EDIT]. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=kill kill (cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly) "This man killed several people when he tried to rob a bank"; "The farmer killed a pig for the holidays" Stop trying to evade the point. Knowing that your child will eventually die does not mean that you are the one to end his/her life.

Murder and killing both mean the same thing: unlawful homicide with malice afterthought. Say you plant a tree, build a house, or create a painting that is (inevitably) destroyed centuries later, by an asteroid hitting the Earth. Does this make you, now dead, responsible for destroying it? No, of course not. This is absurd, Zierro. Even if we concede that us creating something does indeed equal us destroying it, there is still a clear difference between justified and unjustified destruction, i.e. "murder" vs. "justified homicide."

As stretched as these thought experiments may seem, they are surprisingly analogous with reality. These examples illustrate the morality of abortion in a manner that is simpler to understand. Homicide (murder, killing, etc) is the act of killing another person. Simply rearing a child does not make you immediately responsible for their inevitable death.

"Illusionary Onset" is the best, but only because it doesn't look like a filter pile / random generation. Your other works, no offense, look like first-timer scribbles. You'll need to put some effort into your work to get it looking impressive. This isn't a matter of crossing your fingers and hoping the result looks artistic! I suggest you start off with some tutorials. https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/troys2/www/tu ... ings.xhtml http://neomwh.deviantart.com/art/Julia- ... l-66768917 Some of these great works might offer inspiration to branch out: http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/01 ... apophysis/

The shadow definitely needs to change, and should be sharper. The rain is a cool idea, but it needs to be more subtle. The sky looks posterized, and it seems to miss that "wow" factor. The rock seems too sharp and bright, and takes away from the focal point. It's shaping up to be a very cool piece, though. :thumbup: What's the story behind it?

Cool impressionist style. Try including a smaller version for those on smaller monitors. Great work, keep it up. :thumbup:

The same benefits can be had from looser and more secular spiritual beliefs. These are benefits that seem to arise due to belief in God and/or the afterlife, rather than, say, belief in Jesus as our saviour. I am not referring to any particular religion in its entirety, but rather certain sects and certain interpretations of certain religions. (It's hard not to generalize when "religion" encompasses so many widely different beliefs.) I am not trying to stereotype "all Christians" to right-wing gay-haters. Rather, I'm suggesting that many (but not all) religious people are taught to fix certain religious beliefs as absolutely true. In certain Christian sects, this could be a fixed belief in God, the virgin birth, the efficacy of prayer, angels, creationism, etc.

There are many: the right to privacy, the right to control your own body, etc. This can go both ways. The violinist, having lived such a full life, has much more to lose than the fetus. The thought experiment attempts to show that abortion is morally permissible in at least some cases, e.g. rape. However, it can be extended for other cases as well. Say the woman fell asleep aware of the risk of being kidnapped. Naturally, she dismissed it as unlikely, especially because her house was well protected (metal bars on the windows and a secure lock on the door). Even so, if she was to get kidnapped, it certainly wouldn't have been "her fault." Thomson discussed this in more detail: Source: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil ... homson.htm

The main problem I see with religion is that it teaches a set of "absolute truths" that are expected to remain fixed over time. Our understanding of life is always changing, and with it so should our belief systems. Of course, not all religions are like this. "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.

And, by your logic, we ought to treat anti-abortion laws no better. Remember, these so-called 'inconsistencies' exist on both sides of the debate. Judith Thompson's famous violinist thought experiment responds directly to your argument: Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

All new bills should be treated with scrutiny and "due suspicion." Where exactly are you going with this?

The perspective and shading both seem fine. PS: You can set up guides in Illustrator to check your perspective. http://drawsketch.about.com/library/wee ... 21603c.htm

Looks neat. I'm not a fan of the texture, though, it takes away from the minimalism.

Just because you can find some inconsistencies in written law does not mean that all laws are invalid, or that the legality of abortion isn't worth discussing. This is, after all, a discussion about FOCA, a legal bill. Active and passive euthanasia are two different acts. Perhaps a better example would have been ending life support via active euthanasia.