Sir_Squab

Completely moronic. As it has been pointed out, if swearing is an issue, swears should be censored instead of banned. I can see censor evasion as a muteable offense. But if I wanna say [bleep], and the game doesn't want me to, just censor it. Like here: I swear, it gets censored. I evade the censor, there be an issue. And if you don't wanna see swears, isn't that the entire damned point of the filter? Sheesh....

So I was gone for a week. Lots happened here. Lots about cow especially. I love you too cow <3333

But they're souless abominations! You think souless abominations have a sense of shame?

Clearly, ban everyone in a mixture of dragon and granite armour.

That's terrifying.

The happiness is an illusion though. It's not "real" happiness because it's based on your fears and hers. If you weren't afraid of the consequences of admitting to nonexclusivity, you'd have no need to lie about it. I completely agree with this. Also, I feel like Neferast would be a good example to use in favor of polyamoury. I had a discussion with a friend about it once, and I pointed out how if you'd cheat in a monogamous relationship you should do poly. Despite her strong objections to polyamoury (simply because poly is not for her) she agreed with that point.

I think you're actually being rather offensive in your delivery of this, and though I shouldn't have to explain myself to somebody who is being abusive over the internet I will go ahead: I am not disregarding anything, I am just secure in my knowledge that they will very likely never find out. While they might not like it if they find out, they won't so it's not actually hurting anybody's feelings. And they trust me, and I trust them. Interesting. In what ways do they trust you? Do they trust you to not see other women? Do you trust them to not see other men? You seem like the type of person who thinks crimes are only wrong if you get caught.

You mean best possible ways.

Snazzy. I need Seasinger. Stupid RC.

So, you're saying you're inside of him?

feeeeeeeeeeeeeels

...You know, I could ramble a lot on this. This topic made me realize what a complicated issue this is. The best conclusion I can come to is agreeing with Muggi's "don't have drunk hookups." I also agree with Muggi's assessment on how both parties are most likely responsible to a greater or lesser extent.

Morally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with sleeping with a girl who had two beers. Legally, I'm pretty sure that's considered rape. (At least if I'm sober.) I feel the same way about a minor sleeping with someone who isn't a minor. Here, the age of consent is 16. So, legally and morally*, there's nothing wrong with a 20 year old sleeping with a 16 year old. Providing the 16 year old consents. Suddenly that person is 15, and the parents charge the 20 year old with rape. Did the 20 year old do anything morally wrong? Not if you ask me. Hell, I know a girl who when she was 15 liked sleeping with 20 year olds. She said when she turned 16 that she can finally [legally] sleep with the guys she likes sleeping with. Before she was 16, her parents threatened to charge one of her boyfriends with rape. (Didn't happen from the sounds of it.) Now, I'm not saying the answer is to remove those laws. But it's pretty obvious how the law could easily screw someone over in this matter. Also, a guy simply being accused of rape will likely ruin his life, as we've pointed out. *I don't see anything wrong with this scenario at any rate.

because these cases are a pretty massive minority and giving shit like that the same weight as the stuff ginger_warrior is talking about is actively harmful to rape victims. those wacky image macros and people who bring up stuff like this are pretty much the best thing to happen for rapists in a long while. That is... not at all my intent. Also, I have no idea what you mean by wacky image macro. what is your intent then? it's not a flip side, it's not really comparable, and by mentioning it as one you're doing a disservice i mean it's cool if it's not your intent, but it's the effect nonetheless Cause for whatever reason the issue of being falsely accused of rape personally worries me more then rape. I dunno. More likely to affect me? Bugged me ever since that day in sex ed when I found out about it? Bugs me because it leads to a completely legal way of metaphorically screwing someone over? ...Considering how much trouble I'm having explaining it, I don't think my thoughts on it are particularly rational. I feel that rape is taken seriously enough but this situation isn't? Idk. I'm mentioning it because it feels relevant here. Because in this particular narrow scenario, it's morally fine but bad in the eyes of the law. It's something I've never liked. Granted, I don't know how or even if there's a way to fix it without doing more harm then good, but it still bugs me.

because these cases are a pretty massive minority and giving shit like that the same weight as the stuff ginger_warrior is talking about is actively harmful to rape victims. those wacky image macros and people who bring up stuff like this are pretty much the best thing to happen for rapists in a long while. That is... not at all my intent. Also, I have no idea what you mean by wacky image macro.

There's a huge problem with this "can a drunk girl consent" issue. And I chose to put girl down, because let's admit it, that's what we're talking about. The problem is we aren't talking about degrees of drunkeness, which is unfortunately something the law doesn't consider either. (To be fair, there isn't a particularly good way.) Now, in my opinion, there's a huge problem with the law saying a drunk person can't consent. It doesn't take into account HOW drunk. A chooses to drink two cans of beer? Drunk. A girl so drunk she can't walk or talk? Still drunk. So, we can easily establish that the premise of "drunk girl can't consent" is wrong. The problem is, there's no right answer. It's something that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. And to judge it correctly, you need to know what actually happened, as opposed to what people say happened. Which, in the case of someone getting drunk, and in the case of rape charges, it's unlikely that you'll be able to find out. She said rape, he claims she said yes. If we always side with the women, guys will get charged with rape for having consensual sex. If we assume the girl gave content, there will be scenarios in which she didn't but the guy did. That being said, I'm personally of the opinion that if a person chooses to get drunk, and while drunk chooses to have sex with somebody, it's consent. And ginger. One thing I've noticed about your posts. All your examples are of a girl being in a vulnerable position. Being too drunk to walk or talk. You don't bring up the flip side, which is a girl who had like two beers, has sex, regrets it and charges with rape. You didn't reply to the post that mentioned that earlier as best as I can tell.

Yeah, this is number 57132 on the list of updates that was the death of Runescape.

MTG, now I need more people to play with I plays MTG =o

I'm not saying selfishness equals or leads to happiness. I'm saying that making yourself unhappy just to avoid being considered "selfish" is insane. And making yourself unhappy just to be considered "selfless" is equally insane. It isn't that other people aren't important. You can still help others if you want to (and I do this routinely, BTW), but if you're doing so just to appear selfless then you're being stupid. Correct. Depends on what your definition of a selfish prick is. Being inconsiderate and caring only about yourself doesn't lead to happiness. That's not how reality works. And why is that a bad thing? Because then you'd be unhappy. I'm beginning to wonder why we are arguing. In nearly every instance we are essentially agreeing. I agree with all you said, I think in my mind what you are saying is that personal gain is equally important as being others focused. And I agree. You need to balance how you let people treat you and how you treat yourself as well as others. I figured this out half a dozen posts ago. You're arguing over terminology. You're arguing because your definition of selfish is a person who does not care about others. Half a dozen posts ago, I wanted to quote you, quote muggi, then say "potato potahto." Virtually every single person on the planet would choose happiness over unhappiness if it was a simple choice between A and B. Why would you willingly and knowingly choose unhappiness over happiness? Maybe a few people because they feel guilt for something, and they deserve unhappiness, but virtually all people on the planet would pick happiness over unhappiness if it was a simple, obvious, easy choice.

l2 questcape chipmunk

I agree. Yoda man muggi! -gets shot for terrible pun-

I wrote this a while ago after waking up from a dream. Except the note about edmonton, just adds a bit of context. Maybe.

Drive out to fairfax :^_^:[hide] i am joking. do not come here. i won't date any harpie[hide]especially squab[/hide][/hide] </3

Banned because I should be sleeping

Clearly your problem is you like tacos. If you didn't like tacos, you'd be capable of logic.