This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Penthouse Article: Up In Smoke: Our Obsession With Safety Has Left Us Vulnerable  (Read 998 times)

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
    • View Profile

Oh man, that is not only misleading, but pretty damn childish. "More oxygen on Earth" no man we were arguing the usefulness of growing algae vs planting redwoods, and I argued that terrestrial plants bind carbon for longer (redwoods being the most efficient land plants in this regard).


And the higher volume of algae means that more carbon is bound by that than redwoods.


Really, it isn't that difficult to understand.....
"Higher volume of algae". I think you mean growth rate. Apparently it is difficult to understand for some :D

Either way, bringing that up in this thread is pretty ridiculous.

AND: The point with the hentai is not really what it is about, but how controversial it was. 

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16824
    • View Profile

"Higher volume of algae". I think you mean growth rate. Apparently it is difficult to understand for some :D 


Does a higher growth rate not equal more volume? You are measuring the change in amount (volume) over time....



AND: The point with the hentai is not really what it is about, but how controversial it was.


Oh, for fuck's sake. It was a comparison of two pieces of media, so it helps to understand what those two things were about.

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
    • View Profile

"Higher volume of algae". I think you mean growth rate. Apparently it is difficult to understand for some :D 


Does a higher growth rate not equal more volume? You are measuring the change in amount (volume) over time....


No, it doesn't. Amount of carbon absorbed depends on growth of mass over time. And no, mass is not the same as volume. And no, even so, that's not the only thing that matters (because algae break down fast while wood does not). But why did you bring this up again just to show that you still don't get it? It just seems like a petty thing to do.

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16824
    • View Profile

"Higher volume of algae". I think you mean growth rate. Apparently it is difficult to understand for some :D 


Does a higher growth rate not equal more volume? You are measuring the change in amount (volume) over time....


No, it doesn't. Amount of carbon absorbed depends on growth of mass over time. And no, mass is not the same as volume. And no, even so, that's not the only thing that matters (because algae break down fast while wood does not). But why did you bring this up again just to show that you still don't get it? It just seems like a petty thing to do.


Algae grows faster than Redwoods, so you have more of it even when it breaks down.


You are just mad because the pond scum is better performing than your phallic California Redwoods.

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
    • View Profile
“Phallic” redwoods  ;D


Oh boy, petty and obsessive it is then.

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 13852
    • View Profile
Penthouse + Algae + Redwoods + Hentai by page 2.

Yup, this is the GREATEST forum ever to exist.

Snowman0147

  • Now Even More Frosty
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2863
    • View Profile
Penthouse + Algae + Redwoods + Hentai by page 2.

Yup, this is the GREATEST forum ever to exist.


All this Redwood talk is making me hard.

I see myself out with that pun.

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
    • View Profile
Penthouse + Algae + Redwoods + Hentai by page 2.

Yup, this is the GREATEST forum ever to exist.


All this Redwood talk is making me hard.

I see myself out with that pun.
Redwood should be the stage name of a Native American porn star.

Snowman0147

  • Now Even More Frosty
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2863
    • View Profile
Redwood should be the stage name of a Native American porn star.


A manly Native American porn star at that.  I mean it literally demands it.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 1619
    • View Profile
Jeff, Snowman.


Did you actually understand what I said or did you get confused because I included too many clauses in one sentence?


I’ll repeat myself. This time I will use simple grammar.


Defenders of Cuties say that it is art because it has a moral message. Despite it exploiting children.


Metamorphosis has a moral message. It is blatantly exploitative. Nobody claims it has artistic merit. Especially not leftists.


Both are exploitative. Both have moral messages.


Why the fuck do leftists defend Cuties? Why the do leftists NOT defend Metamorphosis?


It doesn’t matter whether real children are involved or not. My argument is about artistic value. Both are horribly exploitative. Both try to shoehorn moral messages. Both should be condemned for exploitation, albeit for different reasons and in different amounts.


Do you understand my point? Or are you still stuck on “you cannot compare real child porn to drawn child porn in any way whatsoever”?


All of this is really tangential to my original point. My original point is that I hate all political parties because they’re equally stupid. I’ve watched many thousands of hours of news and read thousands of articles to come to that conclusion.

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
    • View Profile
Redwood should be the stage name of a Native American porn star.


A manly Native American porn star at that.  I mean it literally demands it.
Only problem with "Redwood" is that it's a softwood. I hear hardwood is more popular.  :P

Snowman0147

  • Now Even More Frosty
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2863
    • View Profile
Jeff, Snowman.


Did you actually understand what I said or did you get confused because I included too many clauses in one sentence?


I’ll repeat myself. This time I will use simple grammar.


Defenders of Cuties say that it is art because it has a moral message. Despite it exploiting children.


Metamorphosis has a moral message. It is blatantly exploitative. Nobody claims it has artistic merit. Especially not leftists.


Both are exploitative. Both have moral messages.


Why the fuck do leftists defend Cuties? Why the do leftists NOT defend Metamorphosis?


It doesn’t matter whether real children are involved or not. My argument is about artistic value. Both are horribly exploitative. Both try to shoehorn moral messages. Both should be condemned for exploitation, albeit for different reasons and in different amounts.


Do you understand my point? Or are you still stuck on “you cannot compare real child porn to drawn child porn in any way whatsoever”?


All of this is really tangential to my original point. My original point is that I hate all political parties because they’re equally stupid. I’ve watched many thousands of hours of news and read thousands of articles to come to that conclusion.


Your missing my point.  While I did highlight the hypocrisy that is going on with the left that wasn't the main point.


My main point for you is that you compared a cartoon where the possible worst thing that can happen to the vast majority of humanity is that they might get offended.  Seriously who is exploited?  A fake cartoon teenager?  She isn't even real.  Pure fantasy and your saying it is as bad as Cuties.  At least that is the impression your leaving with.


Those girls in Cuties are real breathing human beings with thoughts, dreams, and feelings of their own.  Their exploitation is very real, very destructive, and leads to long term suffering. 


The two cannot even be compared because they are no where near the same level.  Seriously cartoons are cartoons and real life is real life.  If you cannot understand this simple truth you need professional help.

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16824
    • View Profile
Jeff, Snowman.


Did you actually understand what I said or did you get confused because I included too many clauses in one sentence?


I’ll repeat myself. This time I will use simple grammar.


Defenders of Cuties say that it is art because it has a moral message. Despite it exploiting children.


Metamorphosis has a moral message. It is blatantly exploitative. Nobody claims it has artistic merit. Especially not leftists.


Both are exploitative. Both have moral messages.


Why the fuck do leftists defend Cuties? Why the do leftists NOT defend Metamorphosis?


It doesn’t matter whether real children are involved or not. My argument is about artistic value. Both are horribly exploitative. Both try to shoehorn moral messages. Both should be condemned for exploitation, albeit for different reasons and in different amounts.


Do you understand my point? Or are you still stuck on “you cannot compare real child porn to drawn child porn in any way whatsoever”?


All of this is really tangential to my original point. My original point is that I hate all political parties because they’re equally stupid. I’ve watched many thousands of hours of news and read thousands of articles to come to that conclusion.


And I will return the favor by using simple language for you since you aren't getting my point.


In Cuties, the exploitation is being blamed on Netflix and the Director because the characters are pretty unconscious of being exploited.


In hentai Metamorphosis, the exploitation was desired and pursued by the character being exploited.

Of course Leftists are going to say that hentai Metamorphosis is worse than Cuties because that piece of media shows the consequences of the main character's poor decisions and Leftists think that their personal actions never have bad consequences.


jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16824
    • View Profile
Redwood should be the stage name of a Native American porn star.


A manly Native American porn star at that.  I mean it literally demands it.
Only problem with "Redwood" is that it's a softwood. I hear hardwood is more popular.  :P


You know, there has been research into using algae to combat erectile dysfunction.....


https://www.hindawi.com/journals/omcl/2020/3293065/


https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/121396/


Algae, putting the woody back in your soft wood Redwood.....

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 1619
    • View Profile
Jeff, Snowman.


Did you actually understand what I said or did you get confused because I included too many clauses in one sentence?


I’ll repeat myself. This time I will use simple grammar.


Defenders of Cuties say that it is art because it has a moral message. Despite it exploiting children.


Metamorphosis has a moral message. It is blatantly exploitative. Nobody claims it has artistic merit. Especially not leftists.


Both are exploitative. Both have moral messages.


Why the fuck do leftists defend Cuties? Why the do leftists NOT defend Metamorphosis?


It doesn’t matter whether real children are involved or not. My argument is about artistic value. Both are horribly exploitative. Both try to shoehorn moral messages. Both should be condemned for exploitation, albeit for different reasons and in different amounts.


Do you understand my point? Or are you still stuck on “you cannot compare real child porn to drawn child porn in any way whatsoever”?


All of this is really tangential to my original point. My original point is that I hate all political parties because they’re equally stupid. I’ve watched many thousands of hours of news and read thousands of articles to come to that conclusion.


Your missing my point.  While I did highlight the hypocrisy that is going on with the left that wasn't the main point.


My main point for you is that you compared a cartoon where the possible worst thing that can happen to the vast majority of humanity is that they might get offended.  Seriously who is exploited?  A fake cartoon teenager?  She isn't even real.  Pure fantasy and your saying it is as bad as Cuties.  At least that is the impression your leaving with.


Those girls in Cuties are real breathing human beings with thoughts, dreams, and feelings of their own.  Their exploitation is very real, very destructive, and leads to long term suffering. 


The two cannot even be compared because they are no where near the same level.  Seriously cartoons are cartoons and real life is real life.  If you cannot understand this simple truth you need professional help.


You got me wrong. I don’t contest that there is a big difference between real and fake children.


My point is this: Why is real child porn being hailed as progressive, but FAKE child porn is not?


Jeff, Snowman.


Did you actually understand what I said or did you get confused because I included too many clauses in one sentence?


I’ll repeat myself. This time I will use simple grammar.


Defenders of Cuties say that it is art because it has a moral message. Despite it exploiting children.


Metamorphosis has a moral message. It is blatantly exploitative. Nobody claims it has artistic merit. Especially not leftists.


Both are exploitative. Both have moral messages.


Why the fuck do leftists defend Cuties? Why the do leftists NOT defend Metamorphosis?


It doesn’t matter whether real children are involved or not. My argument is about artistic value. Both are horribly exploitative. Both try to shoehorn moral messages. Both should be condemned for exploitation, albeit for different reasons and in different amounts.


Do you understand my point? Or are you still stuck on “you cannot compare real child porn to drawn child porn in any way whatsoever”?


All of this is really tangential to my original point. My original point is that I hate all political parties because they’re equally stupid. I’ve watched many thousands of hours of news and read thousands of articles to come to that conclusion.


And I will return the favor by using simple language for you since you aren't getting my point.


In Cuties, the exploitation is being blamed on Netflix and the Director because the characters are pretty unconscious of being exploited.


In hentai Metamorphosis, the exploitation was desired and pursued by the character being exploited.

Of course Leftists are going to say that hentai Metamorphosis is worse than Cuties because that piece of media shows the consequences of the main character's poor decisions and Leftists think that their personal actions never have bad consequences.




I don’t contest that either.

WHY do leftists think real child porn is progressive, but FAKE child porn is not?