Honestly, I've not really considered having children because it just looks exceedingly painful and disgusting. And then if the sex works out, you have to go give birth if you're female.
But I still think that people who have children aren't irresponsible. This is unfair, but going back to the original eugenics argument of this whole thing, if you were a very intelligent, hardworking, conscientious individual wouldn't it be a benefit to the human race in the long run to reproduce? Because how I see it, the only people who would adopt out of worry for the state of the world, would be those same people, while the people who don't care and would teach their children not to care would have more children. It's a matter of numbers. The solution, is for the smart people to have tons of children and outnumber everyone else. The solution is: MORE BABIES! BRING 'EM ON!
Do you really honestly think that intelligence has that much to do with genetics? Things like body type, metabolism, genetic diseases, etc, sure, but intelligence? Doesn't that have more to do with nurture than nature?
Do you really honestly think that intelligence has that much to do with genetics? Things like body type, metabolism, genetic diseases, etc, sure, but intelligence? Doesn't that have more to do with nurture than nature?
Actually, that's under debate. I just read a rather interesting article where they studied identical twins that had been raised apart in different environments. Same genetic material, different upbringings. They had IQ scores with a .75 correlation. Admittedly, that's not 1, so it's not a "nature only" thing, but there is definitely some relationship between the two.
But I guess I was trying to get at, is what we'll end up with is the people who know better, taking care of the kids of the people who don't. Which is rather unfair.
I have to say, if it really becomes an issue with overpopulation, which we haven't really reached yet in America, I like Comrade Mortis' idea best. Basically, everyone is reversibly sterilized and must go through a rigorous application process to have a child. This way, any child born is really and truly desired by the parents and there would be fewer unwanted children who end up in orphanages.
It's Too bad Two Face is already around I like the idea of being a villain with half a rotting face. I wouldn't bother with the coin stuff though the face is enough.
It's Too bad Two Face is already around I like the idea of being a villain with half a rotting face. I wouldn't bother with the coin stuff though the face is enough.
Okay, so I spent the last half an hour writing this huge thing but it evaporated. Here's it in short form. It's not as good this way, but I digress.
You can have biological kids while still fighting the fight for orphans. Having one or two biological kids per two parents doesn't add to the population of the earth. (Once the parents die, their number in the population is either neutralized or reduced by one from their biological output.) If you don't want kids period you can still fight the fight for orphans.
The biggest issue is poverty.
An unwanted child is an unwanted child whether or not a parent keeps the child or not. People in poor socio-economic backgrounds are hurt by the lack of sexual education and when pregnancies do happen, they're told to keep their child no matter what because that's "being responsible". Thus they are stuck in poverty and their children suffer the exact same thing when they become sexually mature. The children have better chances succeeding if they are adopted at this point by people who actually want them.I mean, look at this family, they have a fuckin sweet rabbit.
*ahem*
Ultimately, you guys shouldn't shame someone for having a child if they truly would care and for the child. There is as much of a biological and psychological need for bearing children as having sex for some. That being said, adoption should be considered as much as possible. In the end if this really do care about this issue, fight for reproductive rights and fight against the injustices of poverty. Tutor kids who need the help. Volunteer at a community center. That stuff really does matter and makes a difference in the life of a struggling child.
You can have biological kids while still fighting the fight for orphans. Having one or two biological kids per two parents doesn't add to the population of the earth. (Once the parents die, their number in the population is either neutralized or reduced by one from their biological output.) If you don't want kids period you can still fight the fight for orphans.
The biggest issue is poverty.
This. I think saying that all people who choose to have their own biological kids are selfish is pretty much in the same territory as saying that all women who choose to have abortions are selfish. Though I'm sure that there's people here who would say that, sooooo... *shrugs*
A question for those of you who'd push both adoption and eugenics: how would you mesh these things? Like, would all the unwanted kids get genetic screening and be graded/sterlilized appropriately? I'm not saying that eugenics is wrong, there are a lot of horrible, horrible genetic illnesses and conditions (harlequin fetus anyone?) that it could eradicate. But I think it's one of those things where it starts off with good intentions, but we all know what road is paved with those. (for those who don't, it's the road to hell)
The date last night went well. We went to a nice restaurant with New Orleans cuisine. The poboy had a strawberry barbeque sauce that was amazing. She had the duck. Following that we grabbed a few drinks down at a jazz bar. Her uncle owns a restaurant/blues bar that we went to next, and then we joined up with some of her friends at a country bar. Following that we all went to party at her house. Was a good night.
We're still drastically over the Earth's carrying capacity. We need less people and those who selfishly procreate are adding to the problem.
Again, only developing countries are creating this problem. To say that people in developed countries are selfish for having the desire to have a couple kids of their own is a bit arrogant. Further, the problem of overpopulation has existed for a while now. It's not like there is an inevitability that in 30 years the entire planet will be consumed with people.
Come to think of it, what happens if you find yourself in a serious long-term relationship with a woman, and she wants to have one or two of her own children? Will you dump her over it? What if she is otherwise the woman of your dreams?
Come to think of it, what happens if you find yourself in a serious long-term relationship with a woman, and she wants to have one or two of her own children? Will you dump her over it? What if she is otherwise the woman of your dreams?
My wheelchairy condition might be inheritable - they don't know. I can use that argument though to persuade her that children are a bad idea. Besides, my fiancee doesn't want children so I'm good.
I actually think I'd be good at raising any child because I'll probably spoil him/her rotten, and love them unconditionally, (and people say I'm a pretty good teacher, as I help people with stuff all the time).
But alas, thats very far off in the future if at all.
(And oddly enough, I don't mind if I never get round to it. My life is pretty good at the moment. I know I'll be happy with whatever I get)
We're still drastically over the Earth's carrying capacity. We need less people and those who selfishly procreate are adding to the problem.
You are reducing the world's population by one if you have only one kid. I hope you realize this. If statistics show anything, those most likely to have 2 or less children are either better well off or educated. Instead of pooh poohing people in first world countries for having children, you should be fighting for education and reproductive rights in countries that need it the most.
One could say that anyone here buying games and other recreational items are horribly selfish for not giving said money to those who need to eat or that reading or doing useless things on the internet is horribly selfish as they aren't giving their extra time to those who need it most.
I maintain that the average fertility rate of those who are natively born in the United States is lower than replacement level [which is 2.1 children per-family (the .1 is added for infant mortality)].
From what I'm reading, the United States is actually higher in total fertility rate than similarly developed countries, and that apparently immigrants who come to the US from developing countries have a higher fertility rate than US natives do which is the reason why the US fertility rate is as high as it is.
oh yeah because no other developed country has immigrants. The average family size in the US(and Canada) is 2.6.... if you want to go by that, why don't you go ranting off on the Irish...which lead that stat in 3.1(of first world democratic countries)? :P
I think this whole argument is stupid. There are many contributing factors and you can pull statistics from anywhere, but yes there is definitely a noticeable difference when education and religion are compared. Even within the USA... I'm sure you'll see a difference if you compare the bible belt states to let's say New York or LA.
Ha....and they're(NY/LA) surprisingly higher(than TN,AL,etc)...there goes religion and education... next?
It is because of immigration. That's not even a question.
Not if you're trying to compare to other developed countries it isnt. USA is 34th in immigration per capita... Canada is 13th... yet we have the same family size. Is it an overall issue, yes, but not when you want to compare it to other countries(in family size). Let's face it, Canada and the USA are extremely similar, opposed to what TV and movies teach you. I've been to the US and was not once treated like a tourist. The countries are one of the best comparisons for statistics.
It could be possible for Canada's average family size to be lower than the US minus recent immigration, but I don't see it as likely...both have religious sectors, places of higher and lower education, urban and rural areas....etc.
I thought you couldn't play Gameboy games on the 3DS because of the whole slot removal a couple generations back on the DS side. Did I miss something?
They sell Gameboy games on the eShop.
(The online store on the device. So yeah DLC)
I have like 9 on them, sitting on my 3DS.
(I have so much stuff on my 3DS I had to switch it to grid mode as soon as I got it. I have:
- 5 3DS games (not including the free stuff)
- 2 3D Classics (will be 3 as I'll get Kid Icarus for free soon)
- 13 DSiWare games
- Both Gameboy Color Games
- 9 Gameboy Games
- 10 NES Games (Ambassador bonus)
- 10 GBA GAmes (Ambassador bonus)
Add 10 retail 3DS games to that, and I have alot to play! )
Anyone playing a Gameboy game on the 3DS should hold down L+R and press Y while playing for a nice suprise.
The save state thing? I found that almost immediately by tapping the touch screen. It's pretty cool to find out that you can do it with the buttons, though. Also, this is a feature that's being added to the non-ambassador versions of the ambassador NES games in Japan.
The save state thing? I found that almost immediately by tapping the touch screen. It's pretty cool to find out that you can do it with the buttons, though. Also, this is a feature that's being added to the non-ambassador versions of the ambassador NES games in Japan.
No its not save state.
Its actually the button combination to turn it into retro "green" mode.
(The original Game Boys had a Green screen)
Combine that with the pre-launch Start + Select hold, you can get a true pop-out gameboy.
Oh, the only Game Boy game I have is Link's Awakening (at least until I finish my Zelda series run and pick up Metroid II for that series run), so it doesn't have green mode, plus I accidentally pressed X instead of Y. But hey, I found a new button shortcut I didn't know about.
because they come up to me and try to talk to me as if they were "part of my people" and do incredibly stereotypical stuff and expect me to be like them (most of the time they claim to be japanese)
i say that while it's nice that they are interested in my cultural heritage, they really dont know what it's like to be a part of it
then they get mad at me for saying that
they also get mad at me for saying that my grandmother was unable to even finish grade school because the japanese bombed her school.
*shrug*
i mean, don't get me wrong, i have nothing against people legitimately wanting to integrate into a different culture that they enjoy
it's just thinking that they are a part of that culture from birth without even knowing what it actually is that really annoys me
Next month, around January 17th 2012, I'll be gifting The Blackwell Deception to a random person. Any random person. January 17th 2012 is the day The Blackwell Deception is coming to Steam and I want as many people as possible to experience the game. Unfortunately I'm not rich, so only one could have the game.
However, instead of making it random, I was thinking, why not a small contest for it?
So, any suggestions for a smallish contest to receive The Blackwell Deception? Do note that the contest should end January 16th 2012, since I should pick the winner before January 17th 2012.
Oh, and a coolish trailer for The Blackwell Deception:
because they come up to me and try to talk to me as if they were "part of my people" and do incredibly stereotypical stuff and expect me to be like them (most of the time they claim to be japanese)
i say that while it's nice that they are interested in my cultural heritage, they really dont know what it's like to be a part of it
then they get mad at me for saying that
they also get mad at me for saying that my grandmother was unable to even finish grade school because the japanese bombed her school.
*shrug*
i mean, don't get me wrong, i have nothing against people legitimately wanting to integrate into a different culture that they enjoy
it's just thinking that they are a part of that culture from birth without even knowing what it actually is that really annoys me
That's pretty douchey of them. Also, what is it about Japan that tends to attract the losers? Really. Log onto Gaia or something. Notice all the furries - the prestige of losers - with Japanese names? There is correlation. What does it mean?
Don't get me wrong, Japan is pretty cool, I guess. No more so than any other Asian country, though. (Though I must admit a special fondness for China, so I guess I have a favorite.) It's just... why?
SPECIAL ADDENDUM: The only thing worse than Sonic recolours are My Little Pony OCs.
Next month, around January 17th 2012, I'll be gifting The Blackwell Deception to a random person. Any random person. January 17th 2012 is the day The Blackwell Deception is coming to Steam and I want as many people as possible to experience the game. Unfortunately I'm not rich, so only one could have the game.
However, instead of making it random, I was thinking, why not a small contest for it?
So, any suggestions for a smallish contest to receive The Blackwell Deception? Do note that the contest should end January 16th 2012, since I should pick the winner before January 17th 2012.
Oh, and a coolish trailer for The Blackwell Deception:
Yup. Someone on Facebook was whining about having to do MLP OC commissions. It's kind of annoying that people want to recolor Sonic characters - it's part of the reason that I hate the series so much, the really annoying fans - but why would you want to make your own pony? What good can come from it? Why not come up with your own characters and scenarios? Is it a lack of creativity? I'm not trying to put you specifically down, Strongy, but I just don't get this phenomenon.
What good can come from it? Why not come up with your own characters and scenarios? Is it a lack of creativity?
There are set rules that comes with ponies that make them ripe for fan customization. It's like creating your own pokemon trainer or roleplaying a student from hogwarts: It's something that has a solid fan base and it has potential for customization. I have friends who do this kind of shit all the time and they're incredibly creative. They just do it because it's fun for them. And on that thought, why bother them if they're having harmless fun?
Also, if you're putting yourself up for commissions you have to deal with the fact that you won't do all the things you want to do. That's just the life of a professional artist.
Yup. Someone on Facebook was whining about having to do MLP OC commissions. It's kind of annoying that people want to recolor Sonic characters - it's part of the reason that I hate the series so much, the really annoying fans - but why would you want to make your own pony? What good can come from it? Why not come up with your own characters and scenarios? Is it a lack of creativity? I'm not trying to put you specifically down, Strongy, but I just don't get this phenomenon.
You kinda answered your own question, Pantsy. Technically, these OCs actually are, as the name would imply, the creator's own new characters. Sure, it's done in the same art style as another the original artist, but it's still a brand new character nonetheless.
Recolors of Sonic, however, just sounds like a lazy idea. At least with MLP OCs you get to customize the character and give it different characteristics (like making it taller, shorter, male, female, a pegasus, a unicorn, etc.) but with a singular character base all you can do is make the same character with a different set of colors. That's just stupid.
You kinda answered your own question, Pantsy. Technically, these OCs actually are, as the name would imply, the creator's own new characters. Sure, it's done in the same art style as another the original artist, but it's still a brand new character nonetheless.
Recolors of Sonic, however, just sounds like a lazy idea. At least with MLP OCs you get to customize the character and give it different characteristics (like making it taller, shorter, male, female, a pegasus, a unicorn, etc.) but with a singular character base all you can do is make the same character with a different set of colors. That's just stupid.
But it seems like the same thing as recoloring Sonic and company, just using more variables. I mean, it's not original. Being tie dye green with black hair and pegasus wings doesn't change the fact that it's still a pony.
It's a pet peeve, pretty much. Furries and Sonic recolorers don't harm me in any way whatsoever, but they DO annoy me and their constituents are pretty obnoxious, so I dislike them.
But it seems like the same thing as recoloring Sonic and company, just using more variables. I mean, it's not original. Being tie dye green with black hair and pegasus wings doesn't change the fact that it's still a pony.
Question: Do you complain about all human Original Characters looking the same except for small variations? Because it's basically the same concept.
Yes, it might seem a bit annoying to you but, not every single member of a species can look completely different. When you create a character of any single species, established or not, you have a template to follow. You can create variations in the template but you can't deviate too far from what a character is expected to look like.
Aside from the physical appearance, though, every different OC has it's own personality. you can't just base a character on how it looks, believe it or not.
Comments
Actually, that's under debate. I just read a rather interesting article where they studied identical twins that had been raised apart in different environments. Same genetic material, different upbringings. They had IQ scores with a .75 correlation. Admittedly, that's not 1, so it's not a "nature only" thing, but there is definitely some relationship between the two.
But I guess I was trying to get at, is what we'll end up with is the people who know better, taking care of the kids of the people who don't. Which is rather unfair.
I have to say, if it really becomes an issue with overpopulation, which we haven't really reached yet in America, I like Comrade Mortis' idea best. Basically, everyone is reversibly sterilized and must go through a rigorous application process to have a child. This way, any child born is really and truly desired by the parents and there would be fewer unwanted children who end up in orphanages.
Whatever floats your boat.
You can have biological kids while still fighting the fight for orphans. Having one or two biological kids per two parents doesn't add to the population of the earth. (Once the parents die, their number in the population is either neutralized or reduced by one from their biological output.) If you don't want kids period you can still fight the fight for orphans.
The biggest issue is poverty.
An unwanted child is an unwanted child whether or not a parent keeps the child or not. People in poor socio-economic backgrounds are hurt by the lack of sexual education and when pregnancies do happen, they're told to keep their child no matter what because that's "being responsible". Thus they are stuck in poverty and their children suffer the exact same thing when they become sexually mature. The children have better chances succeeding if they are adopted at this point by people who actually want them. I mean, look at this family, they have a fuckin sweet rabbit.
*ahem*
Ultimately, you guys shouldn't shame someone for having a child if they truly would care and for the child. There is as much of a biological and psychological need for bearing children as having sex for some. That being said, adoption should be considered as much as possible. In the end if this really do care about this issue, fight for reproductive rights and fight against the injustices of poverty. Tutor kids who need the help. Volunteer at a community center. That stuff really does matter and makes a difference in the life of a struggling child.
I know it did for me.
This. I think saying that all people who choose to have their own biological kids are selfish is pretty much in the same territory as saying that all women who choose to have abortions are selfish. Though I'm sure that there's people here who would say that, sooooo... *shrugs*
A question for those of you who'd push both adoption and eugenics: how would you mesh these things? Like, would all the unwanted kids get genetic screening and be graded/sterlilized appropriately? I'm not saying that eugenics is wrong, there are a lot of horrible, horrible genetic illnesses and conditions (harlequin fetus anyone?) that it could eradicate. But I think it's one of those things where it starts off with good intentions, but we all know what road is paved with those. (for those who don't, it's the road to hell)
Again, only developing countries are creating this problem. To say that people in developed countries are selfish for having the desire to have a couple kids of their own is a bit arrogant. Further, the problem of overpopulation has existed for a while now. It's not like there is an inevitability that in 30 years the entire planet will be consumed with people.
Come to think of it, what happens if you find yourself in a serious long-term relationship with a woman, and she wants to have one or two of her own children? Will you dump her over it? What if she is otherwise the woman of your dreams?
My wheelchairy condition might be inheritable - they don't know. I can use that argument though to persuade her that children are a bad idea. Besides, my fiancee doesn't want children so I'm good.
I actually think I'd be good at raising any child because I'll probably spoil him/her rotten, and love them unconditionally, (and people say I'm a pretty good teacher, as I help people with stuff all the time).
But alas, thats very far off in the future if at all.
(And oddly enough, I don't mind if I never get round to it. My life is pretty good at the moment. I know I'll be happy with whatever I get)
You are reducing the world's population by one if you have only one kid. I hope you realize this. If statistics show anything, those most likely to have 2 or less children are either better well off or educated. Instead of pooh poohing people in first world countries for having children, you should be fighting for education and reproductive rights in countries that need it the most.
One could say that anyone here buying games and other recreational items are horribly selfish for not giving said money to those who need to eat or that reading or doing useless things on the internet is horribly selfish as they aren't giving their extra time to those who need it most.
I don't see anyone complaining about that.
From what I'm reading, the United States is actually higher in total fertility rate than similarly developed countries, and that apparently immigrants who come to the US from developing countries have a higher fertility rate than US natives do which is the reason why the US fertility rate is as high as it is.
I think this whole argument is stupid. There are many contributing factors and you can pull statistics from anywhere, but yes there is definitely a noticeable difference when education and religion are compared. Even within the USA... I'm sure you'll see a difference if you compare the bible belt states to let's say New York or LA.
Ha....and they're(NY/LA) surprisingly higher(than TN,AL,etc)...there goes religion and education... next?
well except Utah...which does follow the model.
Not if you're trying to compare to other developed countries it isnt. USA is 34th in immigration per capita... Canada is 13th... yet we have the same family size. Is it an overall issue, yes, but not when you want to compare it to other countries(in family size). Let's face it, Canada and the USA are extremely similar, opposed to what TV and movies teach you. I've been to the US and was not once treated like a tourist. The countries are one of the best comparisons for statistics.
It could be possible for Canada's average family size to be lower than the US minus recent immigration, but I don't see it as likely...both have religious sectors, places of higher and lower education, urban and rural areas....etc.
I thought you couldn't play Gameboy games on the 3DS because of the whole slot removal a couple generations back on the DS side. Did I miss something?
Maybe it's meant as DLC?
They sell Gameboy games on the eShop.
(The online store on the device. So yeah DLC)
I have like 9 on them, sitting on my 3DS.
(I have so much stuff on my 3DS I had to switch it to grid mode as soon as I got it. I have:
- 5 3DS games (not including the free stuff)
- 2 3D Classics (will be 3 as I'll get Kid Icarus for free soon)
- 13 DSiWare games
- Both Gameboy Color Games
- 9 Gameboy Games
- 10 NES Games (Ambassador bonus)
- 10 GBA GAmes (Ambassador bonus)
Add 10 retail 3DS games to that, and I have alot to play!
The save state thing? I found that almost immediately by tapping the touch screen. It's pretty cool to find out that you can do it with the buttons, though. Also, this is a feature that's being added to the non-ambassador versions of the ambassador NES games in Japan.
No its not save state.
Its actually the button combination to turn it into retro "green" mode.
(The original Game Boys had a Green screen)
Combine that with the pre-launch Start + Select hold, you can get a true pop-out gameboy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9So0Ms3ts4
That's incredibly insulting to real cripples.
because they come up to me and try to talk to me as if they were "part of my people" and do incredibly stereotypical stuff and expect me to be like them (most of the time they claim to be japanese)
i say that while it's nice that they are interested in my cultural heritage, they really dont know what it's like to be a part of it
then they get mad at me for saying that
they also get mad at me for saying that my grandmother was unable to even finish grade school because the japanese bombed her school.
*shrug*
i mean, don't get me wrong, i have nothing against people legitimately wanting to integrate into a different culture that they enjoy
it's just thinking that they are a part of that culture from birth without even knowing what it actually is that really annoys me
Next month, around January 17th 2012, I'll be gifting The Blackwell Deception to a random person. Any random person. January 17th 2012 is the day The Blackwell Deception is coming to Steam and I want as many people as possible to experience the game. Unfortunately I'm not rich, so only one could have the game.
However, instead of making it random, I was thinking, why not a small contest for it?
So, any suggestions for a smallish contest to receive The Blackwell Deception? Do note that the contest should end January 16th 2012, since I should pick the winner before January 17th 2012.
Oh, and a coolish trailer for The Blackwell Deception:
That's pretty douchey of them. Also, what is it about Japan that tends to attract the losers? Really. Log onto Gaia or something. Notice all the furries - the prestige of losers - with Japanese names? There is correlation. What does it mean?
Don't get me wrong, Japan is pretty cool, I guess. No more so than any other Asian country, though. (Though I must admit a special fondness for China, so I guess I have a favorite.) It's just... why?
SPECIAL ADDENDUM: The only thing worse than Sonic recolours are My Little Pony OCs.
You should give it to the first person to say who you should give it to.
Is there a problem here, Comrade?
yaaay
Yup. Someone on Facebook was whining about having to do MLP OC commissions. It's kind of annoying that people want to recolor Sonic characters - it's part of the reason that I hate the series so much, the really annoying fans - but why would you want to make your own pony? What good can come from it? Why not come up with your own characters and scenarios? Is it a lack of creativity? I'm not trying to put you specifically down, Strongy, but I just don't get this phenomenon.
There are set rules that comes with ponies that make them ripe for fan customization. It's like creating your own pokemon trainer or roleplaying a student from hogwarts: It's something that has a solid fan base and it has potential for customization. I have friends who do this kind of shit all the time and they're incredibly creative. They just do it because it's fun for them. And on that thought, why bother them if they're having harmless fun?
Also, if you're putting yourself up for commissions you have to deal with the fact that you won't do all the things you want to do. That's just the life of a professional artist.
You kinda answered your own question, Pantsy. Technically, these OCs actually are, as the name would imply, the creator's own new characters. Sure, it's done in the same art style as another the original artist, but it's still a brand new character nonetheless.
Recolors of Sonic, however, just sounds like a lazy idea. At least with MLP OCs you get to customize the character and give it different characteristics (like making it taller, shorter, male, female, a pegasus, a unicorn, etc.) but with a singular character base all you can do is make the same character with a different set of colors. That's just stupid.
But it seems like the same thing as recoloring Sonic and company, just using more variables. I mean, it's not original. Being tie dye green with black hair and pegasus wings doesn't change the fact that it's still a pony.
It's a pet peeve, pretty much. Furries and Sonic recolorers don't harm me in any way whatsoever, but they DO annoy me and their constituents are pretty obnoxious, so I dislike them.
Question: Do you complain about all human Original Characters looking the same except for small variations? Because it's basically the same concept.
Yes, it might seem a bit annoying to you but, not every single member of a species can look completely different. When you create a character of any single species, established or not, you have a template to follow. You can create variations in the template but you can't deviate too far from what a character is expected to look like.
Aside from the physical appearance, though, every different OC has it's own personality. you can't just base a character on how it looks, believe it or not.